Do Tanking Advocates Believe Young Players Should Be Benched For Being Too Good?

[PhoSita]

All tanking advocates in this thread are going to contradict themselves horribly.

Again and again, I read the goal is to be "as horrible as possible" next season. If that is precisely the goal, which I am directly quoting, then your strategy would be to bench your best players. According to the tank-ists, you sacrifice the present for the future - what ultimate way to do so? Sacrifice the growth of your young talent for the golden ticket...

the opportunity to land a superstar in 2014 draft!

Edit: I am prepared to be bashed and spoon fed a million different caveats now; my position will not change though. Any caveats should've been mentioned at the outset when the tank-ists were in full blown "be as horrible as possible next year for the 2014 draft." That is the story the radical tank-ists tld - to change that now, as stated above, is contradictory.

Meanwhile, you're so busy constructing straw men to knock down that you failed to make any sort of argument in favor of your own point of view, or offer any sort of constructive feedback for the thread.

[Celtics4ever]

What do you really think of our roster.  If it stays the same we are tanking.  It will passive not active but our roster is really not that good.   It is still tanking.

The kids will play, the kids will get beat but they will learn.   I think we will be plenty horrible even playing hard with the youth movement.

[nickagneta]

But they will play and get better.

That's not true. They will play and you hope they get better. Its not a guarantee that they do.

[ABOS (A bit of Sanity)]

But they will play and get better.

That's not true. They will play and you hope they get better. Its not a guarantee that they do.

Agree 100% the idea is too give them a shot and hope they develop under a bright young coach. There is no guarentee tho. Some just don't have the mental makeup others game just doesn't translate to the nba. You give JR Giddens, Jauan Johnson , Adam Morrison all the mintues in the world but some players just won't develop into anything.

[PhoSita]

But they will play and get better.

That's not true. They will play and you hope they get better. Its not a guarantee that they do.

Worth noting that real life isn't 2k13, either.

When players get better, it doesn't necessarily mean their abilities across the board get better.

Players may get better and get worse at the same time, in different areas.

[BballTim]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

  I think there's really a bigger issue. Say we dump Rondo and Green and end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the lottery. What then? Say he becomes an all-star, say he looks like he might be a Bosh or an Aldridge (or better) level of player. They'll make your team good but won't be a true franchise player.

  Do you just dump them immediately? Do you suddenly reverse your position and decide that it's ok to have good players on your team to screw up your future draft position and kill your chances of being a true title contender (your only goal)? Isn't drafting all-star level players counter-productive, and don't you need to trade them off ASAP?

[PhoSita]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

  I think there's really a bigger issue. Say we dump Rondo and Green and end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the lottery. What then? Say he becomes an all-star, say he looks like he might be a Bosh or an Aldridge (or better) level of player. They'll make your team good but won't be a true franchise player.

  Do you just dump them immediately? Do you suddenly reverse your position and decide that it's ok to have good players on your team to screw up your future draft position and kill your chances of being a true title contender (your only goal)? Isn't drafting all-star level players counter-productive, and don't you need to trade them off ASAP?

Presumably when you draft these guys they aren't 27-28 years old and coming off a major knee injury . . . .

[BballTim]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

  I think there's really a bigger issue. Say we dump Rondo and Green and end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the lottery. What then? Say he becomes an all-star, say he looks like he might be a Bosh or an Aldridge (or better) level of player. They'll make your team good but won't be a true franchise player.

  Do you just dump them immediately? Do you suddenly reverse your position and decide that it's ok to have good players on your team to screw up your future draft position and kill your chances of being a true title contender (your only goal)? Isn't drafting all-star level players counter-productive, and don't you need to trade them off ASAP?

Presumably when you draft these guys they aren't 27-28 years old and coming off a major knee injury . . . .

  Presumably, but completely unrelated to the question. Are you saying that, should you draft a (sigh) younger, healthy all-star caliber player that you dump him for whatever you can get or that you keep him and let him pull your team away from the highest draft picks?

[PhoSita]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

  I think there's really a bigger issue. Say we dump Rondo and Green and end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the lottery. What then? Say he becomes an all-star, say he looks like he might be a Bosh or an Aldridge (or better) level of player. They'll make your team good but won't be a true franchise player.

  Do you just dump them immediately? Do you suddenly reverse your position and decide that it's ok to have good players on your team to screw up your future draft position and kill your chances of being a true title contender (your only goal)? Isn't drafting all-star level players counter-productive, and don't you need to trade them off ASAP?

Presumably when you draft these guys they aren't 27-28 years old and coming off a major knee injury . . . .

  Presumably, but completely unrelated to the question. Are you saying that, should you draft a (sigh) younger, healthy all-star caliber player that you dump him for whatever you can get or that you keep him and let him pull your team away from the highest draft picks?

I'm just responding (foolishly, perhaps) to the spectre of the straw man you were raising re: people who advocate for trading Rondo even though he's an All-Star caliber player.

The difference is that if we drafted a guy like that who turned out to be an All-Star, they'd probably be younger and healthier, and still on their rookie contract.

So it's not really a terribly comparable situation.

[Vox_Populi]

Kyrie Irving probably wonders the same thing.

[BballTim]

Let's not turn this into another thread about whether tanking is a good idea.  Let this thread be about how to do it right if you are committed to a tanking strategy.

Let's say that Colton Iverson starts out the season playing solid defense and giving 8 rebounds per game in 25 minutes per game, while Kelly Olynyk looks good and is scoring enough to be a Rookie of the Year candidate, with some fans feeling that he will end up being a better power forward than Jared Sullinger.  The team is on a pace for 35-40 wins due in part to their contributions.  The likelihood of that is irrelevant to the question I am asking, which is this:

Tanking advocates suggest sitting veterans and playing young players on the premise that the team will suck while inexperienced players get on-the-job training.  But what if they don't?  If the young players exceed the expectations of even the most green-goggled homer optimist, do you play the veterans more to keep the youth movement from leading the team to the edge of the playoffs, do you just go with it and let the kids play and win if they can, do you let them play but try to find a way to sabotage them, or do you kick the tires on trades and see if you can add a star if one surprisingly becomes available near the trade deadline?

If you want the team to tank, does Olynyk turning out to be more NBA-ready than expected or players such as Sullinger and Bradley making huge improvements in their game a bad thing that needs to be neutralized or a good thing that needs to be encouraged?

  I think there's really a bigger issue. Say we dump Rondo and Green and end up with the 2nd or 3rd pick in the lottery. What then? Say he becomes an all-star, say he looks like he might be a Bosh or an Aldridge (or better) level of player. They'll make your team good but won't be a true franchise player.

  Do you just dump them immediately? Do you suddenly reverse your position and decide that it's ok to have good players on your team to screw up your future draft position and kill your chances of being a true title contender (your only goal)? Isn't drafting all-star level players counter-productive, and don't you need to trade them off ASAP?

Presumably when you draft these guys they aren't 27-28 years old and coming off a major knee injury . . . .

  Presumably, but completely unrelated to the question. Are you saying that, should you draft a (sigh) younger, healthy all-star caliber player that you dump him for whatever you can get or that you keep him and let him pull your team away from the highest draft picks?

I'm just responding (foolishly, perhaps) to the spectre of the straw man you were raising re: people who advocate for trading Rondo even though he's an All-Star caliber player.

The difference is that if we drafted a guy like that who turned out to be an All-Star, they'd probably be younger and healthier, and still on their rookie contract.

So it's not really a terribly comparable situation.

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

[PhoSita]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

[BballTim]

  So you'll be able to manage an answer if I re-ask the question with a reminder that players we draft are on a rookie contract?

Here's your answer:

Every player we draft is an asset.  I'll leave it up to Danny to determine if the player is an untouchable, once-in-a-generation, franchise cornerstone sort of player.  If the player is not, then he's movable in the right deal and the right set of circumstances like everybody else.

Al Jefferson was exactly the sort of All-Star caliber player you describe who Danny moved in the right deal to put us on track to a championship.

As fans we can of course spend days and weeks and even years debating what sort of asset we have on our hands, as we have done with Rondo.  I'm pretty sure it will be quite rare indeed that we draft a player as uniquely polarizing and awesome as Rondo, though.

  Haha. After all that all I get is "whatever Danny thinks is fine with me"? That was useful.

[crimson_stallion]

Most teams when they go young / rebuild end up being terrible (really terrible) that year.  If you look at teams like Sacramento and Washington you'll get the idea.

But, there is one thing about the Celtics that might save us from that horrendous fate. 

If you look at teams like Washington and Sacramento, they went out and brought in young guys like Nick Young, Jordan Crawford, Andray Blatche, Tyreke Evans, Demarcus Cousins, etc.  Guys who has potential, but were flagged as high risk due to their rough personalities.

There is also another thing those teams usually lack - an Elite star player with playoff experience.

The thing I like about Boston's "rebuild" is that first of all, the three young guys we are planning to build around are Avery Bradley, Jared Sullinger and Kelly Olynyk.  Those three guys are as good as it gets when it comes to personality - great work ethic, intense desire to win and willing and eager to lean. 

To add to that, Sullinger and Olynyk are two of the most fundamentally sound rookies that have come in to the NBA in years.  Watching them on the court the are both incredibly active, always moving, setting screens, making the right pass, great hands (they both seem to catch anything that comes near them) and great footwork.

Offensively, but Sullinger and Olynyk can score inside thge post, and both have range out to the three point line.  7 footers with three point range are a nightmare to defend (Dirk, Rasheed, etc) so Olynyk has the potential to cause all sorts of problems for opposing teams.  Sully helps to make up for his rebounding limitations as well.

A lineup of Rondo, Bradley, Green, Sully, Olynyk has to be (mentally) one of the best units out there.  None of those guys would have problems with touches, would have issues getting along with other players, would have problems with effort or desire to win.  Rondo likes to take charge and be listened to, and I think Bradley, Green, Sullinger and Olynyk are all very coachable players who will work with Rondo rather than against him - I think they will look up to him and see him very much as a coach on the floor. I think that will take pressure off the new coach as well.

I'm not saying this team will be great, but they might not be as terrible as people think.  We have a clear cut All-STar (and top 3 in the NBA) PG in Rondo, a volume scorer who (can shut down elite opponents SFs) in Green, an elite perimeter defender in Bradley, an excellent rebounder and inside scorer in Sully, and a 7 footer with three point range.  All of these guys have incredible work ethic.

It's really more the bench I'm worried about. 

Firstly we have no pure PG, although I was pretty impressed with what I saw from the little guy in summer league (sorry, forgot his name!).  With Rondo coming back god knows when from his injury though, we need a backup PG who is good enough to start for a few games.  Terry would have been nice...but Danny probably didn't want to force the guy to play for a rebuilding team.  Until we find a PG we are screwed.

Secondly our backup SG's are Courtney Lee (who was useless last year), Jordan Crawford (disaster) and Marshon Brooks (slightly better version of Crawford).  I'm hoping that Lee will return to form and be a very solid backup SG, though I'm not holding my breath because he was terrible last year.  Here's hoping he gets along better with the new coach and comes up well for us.  Brooks is a SG with mental issues but who could have pretty nice upside if he got his head together.  Crawford is pretty much the same player, only even worse than brooks in pretty much every way (I'm guessing he'll go).

At SF we have Gerald Wallace (while rediculously overpaid) is actually a pretty decent backup SF.  HE was poor last season, but if he returns to some of his previous form (even a hint of it) he could be one of the better backup SF's in the league.

At PF we have Bass (a borderline starting calibre player and a very good backup PF) and Shav who is a hard working who can hit the boards, defend inside and score down low.

At Center we have Fab Melo (who looks much improved) and Colton Iverson (who looks like he could contribute right away with rebounding and interior defense).

Aside from PG and maybe Center we actually aren't looking that bad.

[tarheelsxxiii]

All tanking advocates in this thread are going to contradict themselves horribly.

Again and again, I read the goal is to be "as horrible as possible" next season. If that is precisely the goal, which I am directly quoting, then your strategy would be to bench your best players. According to the tank-ists, you sacrifice the present for the future - what ultimate way to do so? Sacrifice the growth of your young talent for the golden ticket...

the opportunity to land a superstar in 2014 draft!

Edit: I am prepared to be bashed and spoon fed a million different caveats now; my position will not change though. Any caveats should've been mentioned at the outset when the tank-ists were in full blown "be as horrible as possible next year for the 2014 draft." That is the story the radical tank-ists tld - to change that now, as stated above, is contradictory.

Meanwhile, you're so busy constructing straw men to knock down that you failed to make any sort of argument in favor of your own point of view, or offer any sort of constructive feedback for the thread.

Never heard the "straw man" metaphor - cute picture. My purpose was to filter responses before the thread had a chance to derail to never-ending contradictions and hypocrisy.

I've made my POV clear in many other posts. I don't think it's necessary to flesh out again. In sum, they coined the first 13 picks of the NBA draft the "lottery" for a reason. Tanking is pathetic, unnecessary, and sends the wrong message to teammates and fans (e.g., consider kids aspiring to be basketball players).

There is a way to go about shedding contracts and putting yourself in a position, financially and logistically, to improve your roster in the future. In sport, there should (and used to be) an obligation to play your hardest to win. As a coach or GM, I'd rather put a lot more energy in improving the young talent I have than dwell on a pipe-dream and, in the process, ruin what I've got.