Brad Stevens: There will be no tanking

[erisred]

No coach will ever admit to tanking, too likely penalties and fines would come down from Stern.

Plus I wouldn't rule out tanking, even in 06-07 they didn't plan to tank that entire year. They changed the plan on the fly after the horrible start and Pierce's injury.

It was Allen's injury that turned the tide, I think.

Pierce's injury came first, the team was battling through because, knucklehead of not, Tony Allen was stepping up and carrying the team in clutch situations. Then, boom, Tony went down...and suddenly there no way to win.

It made no sense to rush Paul back. It made more sense to just let him sit it out. In the end, there probably was some lineup and substitute manipulation to lose games, but I don't think there was as much of that as some folks thought. I think it was just a mediocre team that didn't know how win in the clutch.

It's the "win in the clutch" that might do in the team this year, too. Who do the C's go to went they need a basket to stop a run or win the game? There are several guys that *could* step up, but nobody on the roster has experience actually being that guy, and until they show they are...consistently...you don't know if they *can* step up and be that guy.

[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?

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 woud be perfectly in line with the approach PhoSita posted.

Your argument is simply not refuting PhoSita´s claim.

That's non-sensical.

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

[LooseCannon]

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

Maybe Ainge doesn't want to risk giving another team a chance to hire Stevens because he is that good of a coach.

[Casperian]

That's non-sensical.

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

Because, as PhoSita said, the coach should be concerned with winning games. It is in the best interest of those fans who hate tanking, and it´s in the best interest of those who want to gather "assets" if our young guys play better than expected, as their value increases then, anyway.

Our coach may be a prodigy, but he´s still an unproven prodigy. If he doesn´t work out, tough luck, if he does (and I´m sure Danny believes he will), why not bring him in now during the critical time when we set the course for the future?

There´s a fundamental difference between tanking and rebuilding. You can tank with a fool as your coach, but you can´t rebuild.

[mmmmm]

That's non-sensical.

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

Because, as PhoSita said, the coach should be concerned with winning games. It is in the best interest of those fans who hate tanking, and it´s in the best interest of those who want to gather "assets" if our young guys play better than expected, as their value increases then, anyway.

Our coach may be a prodigy, but he´s still an unproven prodigy. If he doesn´t work out, tough luck, if he does (and I´m sure Danny believes he will), why not bring him in now during the critical time when we set the course for the future?

There´s a fundamental difference between tanking and rebuilding. You can tank with a fool as your coach, but you can´t rebuild.

Phosita didn't say anything about rebuilding as different from tanking.  He said

It's not the coach's job to "tank."

The original premise by Phosita was that it is the GM who tanks, not the coach.

The GM, on the other hand, needs to keep the big picture in mind.

Part of what the GM does is put the roster on the floor.   Phosita said:

... you don't give your coach a roster that will win many games.

I'm just extending Phosita's reasoning to bring up the other major thing that the GM does is that he hires the coach.

If the GM's intent is to tank, shouldn't both be aligned with that goal?   Shouldn't you avoid hiring a coach that might "win many games"?

Now, if you feel that Danny is NOT tanking, and instead is simply "rebuilding" with the intent to go ahead and try to still win games, then that's a different premise.   One that I don't disagree with.

[Finkelskyhook]

No coach will ever admit to tanking, too likely penalties and fines would come down from Stern.

Plus I wouldn't rule out tanking, even in 06-07 they didn't plan to tank that entire year. They changed the plan on the fly after the horrible start and Pierce's injury.

......Or the other scenario from Stern....Giving the most shameless overt tankers the worst possible draft position.

They held out healthy players until the 2nd worst record was secured.  It was pathetic, overt, and patently obvious.  We were lucky we didn't lose the pick altogether.

I doubt Stevens would come in and put out the pathetic embarassing product (particularly defensively) Rivers did for short-term or long-term gain.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I really don't get the fascination with getting the 8 seed, missing out on the best lottery in 11 years and getting swept in the first round.  I would fire Stevens if we get the 8th seed without hesitation. 

[PhoSita]

That's non-sensical.

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

Because, as PhoSita said, the coach should be concerned with winning games. It is in the best interest of those fans who hate tanking, and it´s in the best interest of those who want to gather "assets" if our young guys play better than expected, as their value increases then, anyway.

Our coach may be a prodigy, but he´s still an unproven prodigy. If he doesn´t work out, tough luck, if he does (and I´m sure Danny believes he will), why not bring him in now during the critical time when we set the course for the future?

There´s a fundamental difference between tanking and rebuilding. You can tank with a fool as your coach, but you can´t rebuild.

Phosita didn't say anything about rebuilding as different from tanking.  He said

It's not the coach's job to "tank."

The original premise by Phosita was that it is the GM who tanks, not the coach.

The GM, on the other hand, needs to keep the big picture in mind.

Part of what the GM does is put the roster on the floor.   Phosita said:

... you don't give your coach a roster that will win many games.

I'm just extending Phosita's reasoning to bring up the other major thing that the GM does is that he hires the coach.

If the GM's intent is to tank, shouldn't both be aligned with that goal?   Shouldn't you avoid hiring a coach that might "win many games"?

Now, if you feel that Danny is NOT tanking, and instead is simply "rebuilding" with the intent to go ahead and try to still win games, then that's a different premise.   One that I don't disagree with.

It's true that Danny Ainge hired a coach with an impressive resume, a guy who is highly regarded and expected to be a very good coach in the NBA.

It's also true that Danny hired a young guy who is completely unproven at this level, a coach who will probably take some time to develop into a really great coach.

So, just as I believe the goal for this year is to develop players rather than win as many game as possible, I think one of the goals for this year is to give Stevens the opportunity to develop as a coach without high expectations as far as winning is concerned.

Point being that I think the Stevens hire is actually completely consistent with what I view to be Ainge's primary goal: setting the team up to be competitive 3-4 years from now, and for a long time after that.

Sure, the team might win a handful more games with Steven as coach than if Danny hired a fall guy, but they'll have invested in a coach who will be established and comfortable here by the time the team gets good again.


If Danny was expecting to have a serious playoff contender out there in the next year or so, I think there were better choices that he could have made for head coach than Stevens.

[FatjohnReturns]

Good for Brad.
Ainge looking at the big picture will simply diminish current assets for future assets and Boston will secure a high lottery pick this year.

[gar]

Good for Stevens.
You don't hire one of the winingest coaches in College Basketball to tank.
People forget that Danny is aquiring assets and the best way to develop and showcase those assets is by putting them in a position to win a few games - not every game; but enough to maintain a competitive culture within the organization. People will compete for playing time and they will compete on the parquet.
 

[JHTruth]

I'm not sure what anyone thought he would say:

"Guys we stink. Don't bother tuning in this year because good god have you seen this roster? Pray for lotto balls"..

[playdream]

keep the Winning culture=eliminated first round every year
tank= in order to compete for the champion
i will rather lose some games to win the champion

[mmmmm]

That's non-sensical.

If Danny's intent is to put a roster on the floor that 'the coach can't win with' --- then why gamble with a coach who might win just enough with that roster to keep you in the 'dreaded mediocrity' of barely in/out of the playoffs/lottery?

Sure, Stevens might not be as successful in the NBA at exceeding expectations.   But why take that chance?

Why wouldn't Danny just hire some schmuck who is more certainly to fail to get much out of the roster Danny gives him?

(This all, of course, ignores the question of just how bad the roster really is or not.)

Because, as PhoSita said, the coach should be concerned with winning games. It is in the best interest of those fans who hate tanking, and it´s in the best interest of those who want to gather "assets" if our young guys play better than expected, as their value increases then, anyway.

Our coach may be a prodigy, but he´s still an unproven prodigy. If he doesn´t work out, tough luck, if he does (and I´m sure Danny believes he will), why not bring him in now during the critical time when we set the course for the future?

There´s a fundamental difference between tanking and rebuilding. You can tank with a fool as your coach, but you can´t rebuild.

Phosita didn't say anything about rebuilding as different from tanking.  He said

It's not the coach's job to "tank."

The original premise by Phosita was that it is the GM who tanks, not the coach.

The GM, on the other hand, needs to keep the big picture in mind.

Part of what the GM does is put the roster on the floor.   Phosita said:

... you don't give your coach a roster that will win many games.

I'm just extending Phosita's reasoning to bring up the other major thing that the GM does is that he hires the coach.

If the GM's intent is to tank, shouldn't both be aligned with that goal?   Shouldn't you avoid hiring a coach that might "win many games"?

Now, if you feel that Danny is NOT tanking, and instead is simply "rebuilding" with the intent to go ahead and try to still win games, then that's a different premise.   One that I don't disagree with.

It's true that Danny Ainge hired a coach with an impressive resume, a guy who is highly regarded and expected to be a very good coach in the NBA.

It's also true that Danny hired a young guy who is completely unproven at this level, a coach who will probably take some time to develop into a really great coach.

So, just as I believe the goal for this year is to develop players rather than win as many game as possible, I think one of the goals for this year is to give Stevens the opportunity to develop as a coach without high expectations as far as winning is concerned.

Point being that I think the Stevens hire is actually completely consistent with what I view to be Ainge's primary goal: setting the team up to be competitive 3-4 years from now, and for a long time after that.

Sure, the team might win a handful more games with Steven as coach than if Danny hired a fall guy, but they'll have invested in a coach who will be established and comfortable here by the time the team gets good again.


If Danny was expecting to have a serious playoff contender out there in the next year or so, I think there were better choices that he could have made for head coach than Stevens.

I think this all boils down to then, is that you think the _roster_ that Danny is putting on the floor this fall is going to be so weak that even IF Stevens somehow gets it to out-perform expectations by a few wins, it will still comfortably miss the playoffs.

In other words, if Danny is following your strategy, the Stevens selection carries minimal risk of deviating from the 'tank' plan given the weight of the weakness of the roster.

Otherwise, there is definitely more than a bit of inconsistency to your 'logic'.

Personally, I think you are underestimating the roster, at least as it looks on paper right now.   But that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Danny gave Stevens a 6 year contract.  He must be comfortable with the idea that Stevens might be coaching a playoff team at some point during that.

What other choices for head coach do you think Danny might have preferred if he thought he was going for the playoffs this coming season?

[nickagneta]

mmmmm makes a lot of sense and something people aren't taking into consideration is the monetary investment they made in Stevens. If you are going to tank and think hiring Stevens was part of that plan, then please explain why ANYONE trying to do that would invest $24 million dollars over 6 years, GUARANTEED for that coach? That's about the dumbest business decision I have ever heard of.

[Finkelskyhook]

I'm not sure what anyone thought he would say:

"Guys we stink. Don't bother tuning in this year because good god have you seen this roster? Pray for lotto balls"..

We have the best PG in the NBA...We have....For the first time in years...One of the best rebounders in the NBA.  We have great athletes for wing players.  One of the best defensive guards in the NBA.  Two of our last 3 1st rounders have great BB IQs and are ready to play.

Doesn't look like a roster that stinks to me.