To Tank or Not To Tank, That is the Question

[Bahku]

I know what tanking is.

So what's the point of your quoting me with a pic of Timmy?

(Sorry, don't get the inference).

In response to your post, specifically "Celtics never tank."

It should be, "Celtics never tank... more than once a decade."

Really?

Been watching them since 1966 and have never seen them tank for a draft pick.

Remind me, if you will ... when and how did they tank?

[More Banners]

Tank?  Never.  NEVER.

Never.

But put a talented yet unproven team out there to play there arses off, and give the young guys the time some want to see young players play every year (cough, cough), yes.

And if they win, that's awesome.  It would mean that we have a surprise early-rise star on our hands, likely along with Rondo and Green, making us good enough for that 7th or 8th seed.

And if not, then we're ready for what needs to happen next.

But tanking is the opposite of building.  It's tearing down.

[D.o.s.]

I know what tanking is.

So what's the point of your quoting me with a pic of Timmy?

(Sorry, don't get the inference).

In response to your post, specifically "Celtics never tank."

It should be, "Celtics never tank... more than once a decade."

Really?

Been watching them since 1966 and have never seen them tank for a draft pick.

Remind me, if you will ... when and how did they tank?

I guess it could be argued that shutting Pierce down for the season and playing the young guys wasn't only to tank for Durant/Oden. I'd disagree with that, but there's some grey area there.



But you don't remember them intentionally trying to lose games for Tim Duncan?


Don't take my word for it. Try M.L. Carr and Rick Fox, by way of Jackie McMullan.

M.L. Carr was the coach and general manager, coaxed into the dual role one year earlier by owner Paul Gaston, who paid him $1 million to replace Chris Ford on the bench and, as Carr described, "take one for the team."

According to Carr, Gaston made his objective for the 1996-97 season clear: Land Tim Duncan in the draft.

Thus, Carr's charge, with a roster that included Antoine Walker, David Wesley, Dana Barros, Dino Radja and Rick Fox, was to play hard -- and lose.

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

Rick Fox, who captained that 1996-97 team, said slogging through that "incredibly painful" season was the most challenging time of his career.

"I knew right from the start it was going to be a different season," Fox said. "Our practices were like track meets. We just ran and ran and ran. After 6 years in the league I knew, 'We can't keep this up. We're going to get hurt.' I think we had 9 guys who had surgery that year."

Fox led the team with 15.4 points a game and struggled through a plantar fascia injury that, he said, "left my foot purple." He wanted desperately to be a leader to stem the negativity that consistently cropped up, so he played on.

"There was one game where I had like 30 points through three quarters," Fox recalled. "We got a lead and I was thinking, 'Finally, we're getting a win.' But then I had to sit down for seven minutes of the fourth quarter and watch it all slip away.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

[Bahku]

I know what tanking is.

So what's the point of your quoting me with a pic of Timmy?

(Sorry, don't get the inference).

In response to your post, specifically "Celtics never tank."

It should be, "Celtics never tank... more than once a decade."

Really?

Been watching them since 1966 and have never seen them tank for a draft pick.

Remind me, if you will ... when and how did they tank?

I guess it could be argued that shutting Pierce down for the season and playing the young guys wasn't only to tank for Durant/Oden. I'd disagree with that, but there's some grey area there.



But you don't remember them intentionally trying to lose games for Tim Duncan?


Don't take my word for it. Try M.L. Carr and Rick Fox, by way of Jackie McMullan.

M.L. Carr was the coach and general manager, coaxed into the dual role one year earlier by owner Paul Gaston, who paid him $1 million to replace Chris Ford on the bench and, as Carr described, "take one for the team."

According to Carr, Gaston made his objective for the 1996-97 season clear: Land Tim Duncan in the draft.

Thus, Carr's charge, with a roster that included Antoine Walker, David Wesley, Dana Barros, Dino Radja and Rick Fox, was to play hard -- and lose.

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

Rick Fox, who captained that 1996-97 team, said slogging through that "incredibly painful" season was the most challenging time of his career.

"I knew right from the start it was going to be a different season," Fox said. "Our practices were like track meets. We just ran and ran and ran. After 6 years in the league I knew, 'We can't keep this up. We're going to get hurt.' I think we had 9 guys who had surgery that year."

Fox led the team with 15.4 points a game and struggled through a plantar fascia injury that, he said, "left my foot purple." He wanted desperately to be a leader to stem the negativity that consistently cropped up, so he played on.

"There was one game where I had like 30 points through three quarters," Fox recalled. "We got a lead and I was thinking, 'Finally, we're getting a win.' But then I had to sit down for seven minutes of the fourth quarter and watch it all slip away.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

Guess we're talking about different things here, because those players did not go out each night and try to lose ... they tried to win.

Every player that has gone onto that parquet with a green jersey on each night did so to do their best, and to help the team do their best.

M.L. Carr may have his own interpretations about what he was doing long-term, but he was also not telling his players "Hey, guys, go out there and lose tonight, OK?"

Red wouldn't allow it, and it wasn't done.

Were there years when they knew they were most likjely going to end up with a lousy record because of personnel they were allowed?

Absolutely, but they still were not "tanking" ... trying to play lousy to insure they'd lose as many games as possible.

Never happened, and I pray it never does, cuz that'll be the time I no longer watch this team, (along with a lot of other people).

Guess I'll agree to disagree on our different definition of the word, but it would never benefit any player in this league to go out on the floor each night and play to lose ... to make his team worse intentionally.

Semantics, I guess, (I'm outa this one - TP for the discussion).
 

[furball]

There are different things being argued here.  The question asks weather We'd rather be the 8th seed or get a top five pick.  I doesn't ask how we get to either situation.  Seeing as they are not going to win a championship this year as constituted, I rather them get the top five pick. 

As far as tanking goes, I think in all of the discussion of tanking there is a miscommunication.  Is tanking throwing basketball games or is it fielding a team that, while playing their butts off, just isn't good enough to win.  I am all for fielding a sub par team, assuming there are young developing guys like Olynyk, pressy, Sully, and The Brazilian dude who's name I don't recall, but I fully expect the guys are the court to try their hardest to win. 

[Clench123]

I've battled with this question all offseason long.  I'm not for losing at all but if we're not going to be anywhere near the championship, why make matters worse by being the middle of the pack team?  If we won't be the best team anyways, why not be the worst and get something out of it for the long term? 

The only person I'm worried about if we choose to tank is Rondo.  The fact that he's going to be spending the prime of his career on a team that's tanking doesn't sit well with me.  If he's going to have an MVP season, then **** tanking because I want him beasting and proving doubters wrong.  God knows he deserve it.  But if not, then let's tank and tank ALL the way. 

[lightspeed5]

tank. you cant draft a superstar with the 20th pick more than once per century.

[Yogi]

There are a lot of research out there that people can find through google to judge the merits of "tanking."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40055/does-tanking-even-work
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/


Tanking is buying a lottery ticket, sometimes you win, mostly you don't.  It is only for desperate organizations that have no other way of improving their team.  It is highly risky because often you keep waiting year after year to land that franchise player to no avail.

1.  Since 2010 the Bobcats have had the worst record in the NBA by far.  They have not had a single number one pick despite that.

2.  The lottery picks they did have in that span has granted them such franchise cornerstones as Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Cody Zeller and Bismac Biyombo. 

In the last decade there have been three unquestionable franchise talents not on their rookie deals.  Lebron James, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard.  All three brought 0 championships to the team that drafted them and left for winning teams on larger markets. 

This pattern is noticeable for lesser stars such as Anthony, Bosh, Williams etc.  Even if you are lucky enough to land a great talent through the draft, those players will leave for playoff teams.

- It is rare to have a single true franchise talent in a draft, let alone multiple talents. 
- On the extremely unlikely chance that there are two franchise talents in a draft, the worst record doesn't guarantee a top 2 pick. 
- Even if you land a top two pick, it doesn't help you avoid Michael Beasley, Wes Johnson, Kwame Brown, Derrick Williams etc.
- Even if you land a great player it doesn't protect you from Len Bias, Greg Oden, Shaun Livingston etc.
- And finally if you avoid all the land mines and walk away with a franchise player, you have 5-6 years to win a championship before they leave to join a contender. 

The Celtics are hardly desperate.  They have Bradley, Sullinger, Olynyk who will keep improving for another 6 years.  They have Rondo, Green, Lee, Bass, Humphries in their prime.  They will also have many first round picks and cap space to build a contender. 

All the contenders Miami, Bulls, Memphis, OKC, Indiana, Houston etc were a first round exit playoff team with one star before they became a contender.  Why would Boston take a step backwards when they can keep going forward?  Players like Aldridge, Love are not going to want to leave their own crappy teams to sign an extension with a different crappy team.  They will only come here if we can show that we can win. 

[Bahku]

There are a lot of research out there that people can find through google to judge the merits of "tanking."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40055/does-tanking-even-work
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/


Tanking is buying a lottery ticket, sometimes you win, mostly you don't.  It is only for desperate organizations that have no other way of improving their team.  It is highly risky because often you keep waiting year after year to land that franchise player to no avail.

1.  Since 2010 the Bobcats have had the worst record in the NBA by far.  They have not had a single number one pick despite that.

2.  The lottery picks they did have in that span has granted them such franchise cornerstones as Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Cody Zeller and Bismac Biyombo. 

In the last decade there have been three unquestionable franchise talents not on their rookie deals.  Lebron James, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard.  All three brought 0 championships to the team that drafted them and left for winning teams on larger markets. 

This pattern is noticeable for lesser stars such as Anthony, Bosh, Williams etc.  Even if you are lucky enough to land a great talent through the draft, those players will leave for playoff teams.

- It is rare to have a single true franchise talent in a draft, let alone multiple talents. 
- On the extremely unlikely chance that there are two franchise talents in a draft, the worst record doesn't guarantee a top 2 pick. 
- Even if you land a top two pick, it doesn't help you avoid Michael Beasley, Wes Johnson, Kwame Brown, Derrick Williams etc.
- Even if you land a great player it doesn't protect you from Len Bias, Greg Oden, Shaun Livingston etc.
- And finally if you avoid all the land mines and walk away with a franchise player, you have 5-6 years to win a championship before they leave to join a contender. 

The Celtics are hardly desperate.  They have Bradley, Sullinger, Olynyk who will keep improving for another 6 years.  They have Rondo, Green, Lee, Bass, Humphries in their prime.  They will also have many first round picks and cap space to build a contender. 

All the contenders Miami, Bulls, Memphis, OKC, Indiana, Houston etc were a first round exit playoff team with one star before they became a contender.  Why would Boston take a step backwards when they can keep going forward?  Players like Aldridge, Love are not going to want to leave their own crappy teams to sign an extension with a different crappy team.  They will only come here if we can show that we can win.

Great post, Yogi. (TP)

[chambers]

There are a lot of research out there that people can find through google to judge the merits of "tanking."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40055/does-tanking-even-work
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/04/02/why-tanking-doesnt-work-in-the-nba/


Tanking is buying a lottery ticket, sometimes you win, mostly you don't.  It is only for desperate organizations that have no other way of improving their team.  It is highly risky because often you keep waiting year after year to land that franchise player to no avail.

1.  Since 2010 the Bobcats have had the worst record in the NBA by far.  They have not had a single number one pick despite that.

2.  The lottery picks they did have in that span has granted them such franchise cornerstones as Kemba Walker, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Cody Zeller and Bismac Biyombo. 

In the last decade there have been three unquestionable franchise talents not on their rookie deals.  Lebron James, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard.  All three brought 0 championships to the team that drafted them and left for winning teams on larger markets. 

This pattern is noticeable for lesser stars such as Anthony, Bosh, Williams etc.  Even if you are lucky enough to land a great talent through the draft, those players will leave for playoff teams.

- It is rare to have a single true franchise talent in a draft, let alone multiple talents. 
- On the extremely unlikely chance that there are two franchise talents in a draft, the worst record doesn't guarantee a top 2 pick. 
- Even if you land a top two pick, it doesn't help you avoid Michael Beasley, Wes Johnson, Kwame Brown, Derrick Williams etc.
- Even if you land a great player it doesn't protect you from Len Bias, Greg Oden, Shaun Livingston etc.
- And finally if you avoid all the land mines and walk away with a franchise player, you have 5-6 years to win a championship before they leave to join a contender. 

The Celtics are hardly desperate.  They have Bradley, Sullinger, Olynyk who will keep improving for another 6 years.  They have Rondo, Green, Lee, Bass, Humphries in their prime.  They will also have many first round picks and cap space to build a contender. 

All the contenders Miami, Bulls, Memphis, OKC, Indiana, Houston etc were a first round exit playoff team with one star before they became a contender. Why would Boston take a step backwards when they can keep going forward?  Players like Aldridge, Love are not going to want to leave their own crappy teams to sign an extension with a different crappy team.  They will only come here if we can show that we can win.

How'd the Bulls get their star player? Howd the Thunder get their star player? How'd Miami get Wade? How'd the Spurs get Duncan? How
did the Celtics get Ray Allen?

You're missing the importance of using that pick as a trade assett for an established star. Tanking doesn't mean tanking just to draft a hopeful star, it means gaining the pick as an asset to get a guy like Ray Allen or Aldridge or Love. What exactly do we have at the moment that the Blazers or Wolves would give up for their big studs? Avery Bradley? A few last first round picks? The higher that pick, the better it's trade value.

Here's a good read on the importance of needing multiple superstar players and the how those players have been acquired over the history of the NBA.

Get edumacated guys....read every single part and do the math.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431

[Yogi]

How'd the Bulls get their star player? Howd the Thunder get their star player? How'd Miami get Wade? How'd the Spurs get Duncan? How
did the Celtics get Ray Allen?

You're missing the importance of using that pick as a trade assett for an established star. Tanking doesn't mean tanking just to draft a hopeful star, it means gaining the pick as an asset to get a guy like Ray Allen or Aldridge or Love. What exactly do we have at the moment that the Blazers or Wolves would give up for their big studs? Avery Bradley? A few last first round picks? The higher that pick, the better it's trade value.

Here's a good read on the importance of needing multiple superstar players and the how those players have been acquired over the history of the NBA.

Get edumacated guys....read every single part and do the math.

http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229431

1.  The point is we already have a star player.  We don't need to tank. 

2.  Why would an established star like Love or Aldridge, who are sick of losing, sign an extension with another lottery team?

3.  That article is not helpful in this discussion.  Of course the best players in any sport win more championship.  Who would disagree with that? 

What is being discussed is if it is necessary to tank to get the best players.  This is not the case.  Memphis, Indiana and Houston have built contenders without a single top 5 lottery pick.  They did so because Dwight Howard and David West wanted to join a playoff team, not because they had a top lottery pick. 

[BballTim]

I know what tanking is.

So what's the point of your quoting me with a pic of Timmy?

(Sorry, don't get the inference).

In response to your post, specifically "Celtics never tank."

It should be, "Celtics never tank... more than once a decade."

Really?

Been watching them since 1966 and have never seen them tank for a draft pick.

Remind me, if you will ... when and how did they tank?

I guess it could be argued that shutting Pierce down for the season and playing the young guys wasn't only to tank for Durant/Oden. I'd disagree with that, but there's some grey area there.



But you don't remember them intentionally trying to lose games for Tim Duncan?


Don't take my word for it. Try M.L. Carr and Rick Fox, by way of Jackie McMullan.

M.L. Carr was the coach and general manager, coaxed into the dual role one year earlier by owner Paul Gaston, who paid him $1 million to replace Chris Ford on the bench and, as Carr described, "take one for the team."

According to Carr, Gaston made his objective for the 1996-97 season clear: Land Tim Duncan in the draft.

Thus, Carr's charge, with a roster that included Antoine Walker, David Wesley, Dana Barros, Dino Radja and Rick Fox, was to play hard -- and lose.

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

Rick Fox, who captained that 1996-97 team, said slogging through that "incredibly painful" season was the most challenging time of his career.

"I knew right from the start it was going to be a different season," Fox said. "Our practices were like track meets. We just ran and ran and ran. After 6 years in the league I knew, 'We can't keep this up. We're going to get hurt.' I think we had 9 guys who had surgery that year."

Fox led the team with 15.4 points a game and struggled through a plantar fascia injury that, he said, "left my foot purple." He wanted desperately to be a leader to stem the negativity that consistently cropped up, so he played on.

"There was one game where I had like 30 points through three quarters," Fox recalled. "We got a lead and I was thinking, 'Finally, we're getting a win.' But then I had to sit down for seven minutes of the fourth quarter and watch it all slip away.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

  Fox was very opposed to the team tanking as I recall.

[D.o.s.]

I know what tanking is.

So what's the point of your quoting me with a pic of Timmy?

(Sorry, don't get the inference).

In response to your post, specifically "Celtics never tank."

It should be, "Celtics never tank... more than once a decade."

Really?

Been watching them since 1966 and have never seen them tank for a draft pick.

Remind me, if you will ... when and how did they tank?

I guess it could be argued that shutting Pierce down for the season and playing the young guys wasn't only to tank for Durant/Oden. I'd disagree with that, but there's some grey area there.



But you don't remember them intentionally trying to lose games for Tim Duncan?


Don't take my word for it. Try M.L. Carr and Rick Fox, by way of Jackie McMullan.

M.L. Carr was the coach and general manager, coaxed into the dual role one year earlier by owner Paul Gaston, who paid him $1 million to replace Chris Ford on the bench and, as Carr described, "take one for the team."

According to Carr, Gaston made his objective for the 1996-97 season clear: Land Tim Duncan in the draft.

Thus, Carr's charge, with a roster that included Antoine Walker, David Wesley, Dana Barros, Dino Radja and Rick Fox, was to play hard -- and lose.

"It's so difficult," Carr said, "because it goes completely against your basketball DNA.

As GM, Carr made sure he didn't sign any expensive or overly talented free agents. Because he was his own coach, there was no backlash from the bench regarding his personnel decisions.

"I was bringing in guys like Nate Driggers and Brett Szabo," Carr said. "It was a joke. But the idea was not to make a move that would help us too much."

The hardest part, said Carr, was straddling the fine line between encouraging his team to play the game the right way but make sure they didn't win too much.

"I remember one game in particular, when David Wesley was hitting jump shots and 3-pointers all over the floor," Carr said. "I had to get him out of the game.

"He came over to me and said, 'Coach, what are you doing? I just hit four shots in a row.' I said, 'I know, David, but I'm experimenting.'

"I'll tell you, it was brutal. Those players were smart. They knew what we were doing.

"I told them, 'I won't be here a year from now. This is for your future. In the final analysis, you'll benefit from this.' But after a while, they didn't want to hear it."

Rick Fox, who captained that 1996-97 team, said slogging through that "incredibly painful" season was the most challenging time of his career.

"I knew right from the start it was going to be a different season," Fox said. "Our practices were like track meets. We just ran and ran and ran. After 6 years in the league I knew, 'We can't keep this up. We're going to get hurt.' I think we had 9 guys who had surgery that year."

Fox led the team with 15.4 points a game and struggled through a plantar fascia injury that, he said, "left my foot purple." He wanted desperately to be a leader to stem the negativity that consistently cropped up, so he played on.

"There was one game where I had like 30 points through three quarters," Fox recalled. "We got a lead and I was thinking, 'Finally, we're getting a win.' But then I had to sit down for seven minutes of the fourth quarter and watch it all slip away.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9434966/for-boston-celtics-tanking-likely-necessary-never-easy

Guess we're talking about different things here, because those players did not go out each night and try to lose ... they tried to win.

Every player that has gone onto that parquet with a green jersey on each night did so to do their best, and to help the team do their best.

M.L. Carr may have his own interpretations about what he was doing long-term, but he was also not telling his players "Hey, guys, go out there and lose tonight, OK?"

Red wouldn't allow it, and it wasn't done.

Were there years when they knew they were most likjely going to end up with a lousy record because of personnel they were allowed?

Absolutely, but they still were not "tanking" ... trying to play lousy to insure they'd lose as many games as possible.

Never happened, and I pray it never does, cuz that'll be the time I no longer watch this team, (along with a lot of other people).

Guess I'll agree to disagree on our different definition of the word, but it would never benefit any player in this league to go out on the floor each night and play to lose ... to make his team worse intentionally.

Semantics, I guess, (I'm outa this one - TP for the discussion).

TP to you as well. I agree that the players never went out and tried to lose.

I would say, though, that to me, watching management and the coaching staff keep talent off the floor amounts to much of the same thing--like when the Warriors tried (and succeeded) to keep their 7th pick a couple years ago--the Harrison Barnes pick.

It'd actually be interesting to see if there are very many teams that actually tank by your definition--even the Bobcats, who are horrible, seem to be horrible because their roster was made up exclusively of young (not-all-that-great) talent, not because they were trying to lose games. I do agree that if your team has a winning culture, you should try to maintain that for as long as possible.

[More Banners]

The problem with tanking is that, from what I can see, we have a viable playoff team to field.

3-guard rotation:  Rondo, Bradley, Lee/Bogans (best of)

3-forward rotation:  Green, Wallace, Bass/Sully (best of)

Formerly Center Position:  Humphries, Brazilian Guy/Olynyk (best of)


It just doesn't look like a team that shouldn't win enough games to stay out of the top of the lottery, and I don't think the difference between possibly picking, say, 7th or 8th instead of, say, 12th is worth making not going all all-out to win worthwhile.

I mean, 1-4, we're pretty good.  And we have solid guard and forward backups, and perhaps go 4 deep with rotation guys at both guard and forward.  That should be a playoff team, even if the center position isn't that strong.

[Celtics18]

Close race, so far.

10 to 8 in favor of tanking.

I'd love to see some more votes to get a bigger sample size. 

I re-iterate,  FREE TPs FOR VOTERS!!!!!!  (I can't tell who voted just by looking at the poll, but if you post anything in this thread, you get TPs).