Can we stop with this tanking ?

[Celtics18]

This is one of the most sensible and convincing anti-tank posts I've seen. 

TP

It's against tanking through 2018 which I don't think anybody is advocating for.  I am all in on tanking next year, which makes complete sense. It's basically a strawman argument

  How exactly do you expect to "untank" after you've gone to the bottom? Call up whoever you trade Rondo and/or Green to and ask for a do-over?

we don't have to trade them, just sit them out or ask them to lose
celtic is about championship, even on tanking
though bobcats and wizards will be very hard to beat we will still take the fight

I don't think that it will go well if you ask the players to lose.  That's the thing about tanking.  If you want it to work, you can't have good enough talent to help you win. 

[sed522002]

For what it's worth Ainge says we're not tanking 

gary washburn ‏@GwashNBAGlobe

Danny Ainge to Globe: "We are not tanking. Thats ridiculous. This is the Boston Celtics." #celtics

[Boris Badenov]

For what it's worth Ainge says we're not tanking 

gary washburn ‏@GwashNBAGlobe

Danny Ainge to Globe: "We are not tanking. Thats ridiculous. This is the Boston Celtics." #celtics

"Danny Ainge: No Big Moves Planned"

    - Boston Herald headline, June 27, 2013

[LarBrd33]

For what it's worth Ainge says we're not tanking 

gary washburn ‏@GwashNBAGlobe

Danny Ainge to Globe: "We are not tanking. Thats ridiculous. This is the Boston Celtics." #celtics

We aren't "Tanking"... We are "Accidentally Losing with a Purpose" ... and by "accident" I mean "totally by design". 

This team is tanking.  They'll never admit it.  They never flat out admitted they tanked in 2007 either... but they did.

They will go about business like they are trying to win games.  Guys like Sully will give it their all.  They will try to instill the winning attitude in the young players.  But ultimately, they will not have enough talent to win.  "Tanking" gives off the idea that the players/coaches all are intentionally trying to throw games.  That's kind of a joke... the reality is, they still try to win... they just don't have enough to compete.  The post-Chris Paul Hornets didn't set out with the intention of bricking shots and turning the ball over on purpose.  The roster moves took care of it for them.  They simply didn't have enough talent to win.

[PhoSita]

We aren't "tanking" as in purposely losing games.  Of course not.

We're just sending a bunch of young guys and washed up vets out there and saying, "Give it your all, guys!  Fight hard."

But everybody involved, including the players, understands that most nights we're essentially sending out a team of guys wielding knives to do battle with a firing squad.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Sure seems like a lot of people have jumped to a lot of conclusions and don't really understand what tanking is, etc.

Getting rid of bad contracts, acquiring assets is not tanking. For all the entitled whining about what is going on, did anyone think this team was a legit contender? If that is your top priority it makes more sense to look at what DA is doing as trying to set up getting back to that as quick as possible. Rather than being mired by bad contracts and tedium it is about trying to set yourself up with the flexibility so you can actually make moves that lead to success.

I honestly don't understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

[sed522002]

Sure seems like a lot of people have jumped to a lot of conclusions and don't really understand what tanking is, etc.

Getting rid of bad contracts, acquiring assets is not tanking. For all the entitled whining about what is going on, did anyone think this team was a legit contender? If that is your top priority it makes more sense to look at what DA is doing as trying to set up getting back to that as quick as possible. Rather than being mired by bad contracts and tedium it is about trying to set yourself up with the flexibility so you can actually make moves that lead to success.



I honestly don't understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Hmm..I don't know if you've read the threads, but I don't think anyone is complaining about getting contracts/getting rid of contracts..it's the intentional losing of games that some are worried about. People are entitled to feel certain ways to each their own.

[eugen]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

[fairweatherfan]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly the financial resources that Boston does.

[PhoSita]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly as good of a financial situation as we do.

There's no denying the Thunder have enjoyed some pretty incredible luck to reach that point, though.  It's not really a method that you can expect to duplicate exactly.

If the Rockets get Howard this summer you could argue they are in nearly as good a position as the Thunder are now, and they never had to all-out tank in order to reach that point.

Of course, the Rockets also benefit from having one of the best two or three GMs in the league who finds great value in the draft nearly every year.

I think the key point is that rebuilding into a contender requires a lot of assets to do.  The primary thing that seems to be required for getting such assets is being really opportunistic and following a disciplined plan to do it.  There's more than one way to acquire assets, though.  Luck, as always, is a big part of it.  But then, good GMs tend to make their own luck.

[rondoallaturca]

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly the financial resources that Boston does.

And it's also smart to point out that Seattle/OKC is the ONLY team in the past few years to succeed by tanking. Between a combination of incredible scouting and extreme luck, they were able to land arguably the best player in the NBA not named Lebron James, a franchise point guard, a perennial sixth man of the year candidate who has now emerged as one of the best players in the league playing at a very thin position, AND a shot-blocking phenom (who is otherwise severely overrated defensively). Not many other teams (as in, every other team who tried tanking) can say they've had the same fortunes with their picks. Also, I apologize for the completely unnecessary jab at Ibaka, but I just had to.

[fairweatherfan]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly as good of a financial situation as we do.

There's no denying the Thunder have enjoyed some pretty incredible luck to reach that point, though.  It's not really a method that you can expect to duplicate exactly.

Oh sure - but if Finals appearances were easy to duplicate they'd have to give out more than 2 a year.  Point is that the full tank approach can absolutely work, and has recently.  But we have a lot more flexibility than that, like how we bounced back from the worst possible pick in 07. 

I'd hate to put all of our eggs in fully tanking, because OKC is the exception and not the rule, but I haven't seen any indication of doing that.  All we've done so far is confirm we aren't contenders by trading 3 guys who'll be a combined 109 years old in their next game.

[BballTim]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly the financial resources that Boston does.

  That's true, but you'd wear out your fingers when you started listing teams that it didn't work for.

[PhoSita]

Tanking is a bad option, how many teams did that and had success?

Seattle/OKC most recently, and they never had to win the lottery to do it.  They scrapped a solid playoff squad by shipping out their expensive vets like Lewis and Allen,  and built a young core from the #2, #4, #24, and #3 picks over a 3 year period. 

By Year 5 they'd made the Finals and are in a good position to contend for the next several, despite not having nearly as good of a financial situation as we do.

There's no denying the Thunder have enjoyed some pretty incredible luck to reach that point, though.  It's not really a method that you can expect to duplicate exactly.

Oh sure - but if Finals appearances were easy to duplicate they'd have to give out more than 2 a year.  Point is that the full tank approach can absolutely work, and has recently.  But we have a lot more flexibility than that, like how we bounced back from the worst possible pick in 07. 

I'd hate to put all of our eggs in fully tanking, because OKC is the exception and not the rule, but I haven't seen any indication of doing that.  All we've done so far is confirm we aren't contenders by trading 3 guys who'll be a combined 109 years old in their next game.

How dare you apply such reasonable, measured thinking to this situation!  We need extremism and vitriol!

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

Sure seems like a lot of people have jumped to a lot of conclusions and don't really understand what tanking is, etc.

Getting rid of bad contracts, acquiring assets is not tanking. For all the entitled whining about what is going on, did anyone think this team was a legit contender? If that is your top priority it makes more sense to look at what DA is doing as trying to set up getting back to that as quick as possible. Rather than being mired by bad contracts and tedium it is about trying to set yourself up with the flexibility so you can actually make moves that lead to success.



I honestly don't understand how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

Hmm..I don't know if you've read the threads, but I don't think anyone is complaining about getting contracts/getting rid of contracts..it's the intentional losing of games that some are worried about. People are entitled to feel certain ways to each their own.

I've read about 50 threads about this in the last week. And maybe it is just semantics but my distinction is that you obviously will lose games when rebuilding, and a team should be ok with that (and granted, last year saw them lose 40 games), but there is a valid difference between losing games with an end in sight that goes beyond just losing games with the end of one draft pick chance. This is not that. Yes, that is part but the shedding contracts/clearing space/acquiring assets is not simply to the end of losing games for a draft pick. It is a much larger picture, with many more options, and tanking means the former, not the latter.