Brad Stevens: There will be no tanking

[SHAQATTACK]

not the coaches job to tank.    He should only worry about winning with the assets he has .   

Danny on the other hand can control the flow of talent into the roster to suit his plans.

Brads reputation doesn't seem to be a person who would lose a game on purpose . 

[Moranis]

Where has this notion come from that tanking=not trying to win.  I just don't get it.  Tanking means fielding a team that just can't win that many games, holding injured players out longer than they need to be, and things like that.  It doesn't mean missing baskets on purpose, playing 5 centers at the same time, etc. 

[Vox_Populi]

Where has this notion come from that tanking=not trying to win.  I just don't get it.  Tanking means fielding a team that just can't win that many games, holding injured players out longer than they need to be, and things like that.

Seems more like an issue of semantics. To me "fielding a team that can't win many games" roughly equals not trying to win.

[Moranis]

Where has this notion come from that tanking=not trying to win.  I just don't get it.  Tanking means fielding a team that just can't win that many games, holding injured players out longer than they need to be, and things like that.

Seems more like an issue of semantics. To me "fielding a team that can't win many games" roughly equals not trying to win.

Not the same thing at all. 

[Vox_Populi]

Where has this notion come from that tanking=not trying to win.  I just don't get it.  Tanking means fielding a team that just can't win that many games, holding injured players out longer than they need to be, and things like that.

Seems more like an issue of semantics. To me "fielding a team that can't win many games" roughly equals not trying to win.

Not the same thing at all.

If you say so.

[lightspeed5]

we wont lose intentionally. we're losing because we have humphries and co. running the show.

[mmmmm]

Well, good.

It's not the coach's job to "tank."  The coach should try to win as much as possible with the roster he's given, and instill a hunger to fight hard to win at all costs in his players.

The GM, on the other hand, needs to keep the big picture in mind.  If the goal of the season is not to win as many games as possible but to develop young players and collect assets (i.e. the draft), then you don't give your coach a roster that will win many games.

And .... you hire a coach who's main claim to fame is his ability to win games with sub-par rosters?

Why wouldn't Danny instead hired some loser of a coach that he could then fire after a year?

Stevens would have probably still been there next season -- his hiring by Danny took everybody by surprise.

[Casperian]

And .... you hire a 36-year-old coach who's main claim to fame is his ability to win games with sub-par rosters in college?

fixed

[tyrone biggums]

I don't get why the tank crowd hates this hire. If he fails then the Celtics get a lottery pick. If he succeeds then the team comprised of young promising players get into the playoffs and would be more attractive to free agents in 2014. I don't see how you guys lose either way.

[lightspeed5]

Where has this notion come from that tanking=not trying to win.  I just don't get it.  Tanking means fielding a team that just can't win that many games, holding injured players out longer than they need to be, and things like that.  It doesn't mean missing baskets on purpose, playing 5 centers at the same time, etc.

TP. finally some common sense.

[Celtic]

Me: Yes there will be.

[Casperian]

I don't get why the tank crowd hates this hire. If he fails then the Celtics get a lottery pick. If he succeeds then the team comprised of young promising players get into the playoffs and would be more attractive to free agents in 2014. I don't see how you guys lose either way.

Who is this "tank crowd" you´re talking about, and who of them said he hates the hire?

[mmmmm]

And .... you hire a 36-year-old coach who's main claim to fame is his ability to win games with sub-par rosters in college?

fixed

Kinda irrelevant.  Especially considering my following question:


Why wouldn't Danny instead hired some loser of a coach that he could then fire after a year?

[Casperian]

And .... you hire a 36-year-old coach who's main claim to fame is his ability to win games with sub-par rosters in college?

fixed

Kinda irrelevant.  Especially considering my following question:


Why wouldn't Danny instead hired some loser of a coach that he could then fire after a year?

Directly related.

'Cause it might or might not work.
Hiring Stevens now in our current situation is one of the best flyers Danny could take. The coach will probably need an adjustment period, too, which would be perfectly in line with the approach PhoSita posted.

Your argument is simply not refuting PhoSita´s claim.

[sed522002]

I think Ainge is making an investment in his staff. With the eventual hire of Ron Adams, who's regarded VERY highly, you don't just crap away in season or 2. What he does with the players is something different.