To Tank or Not To Tank, That is the Question

[BballTim]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

A guy like Wiggins?  I wonder who those guys are.  Parker, Randle, Exum, Andrew Harrison . . . ?   There seems to be a fantasy floating around that there are 5 or 6 players like that in the up-coming draft.  Of course, it's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this where the case. 

I think it still remains to be seen if Andrew Wiggins will, in fact, turn out to be "a guy like Wiggins," never mind the rest of them.

NBA Scouting has gotten a whole lot better in the last several years.

If you look at the top 5 players from 2003-2010 each draft (and, of course, each draft has varying potency) has shown progressively fewer terrible decisions and evaluations by management when drafting, with a couple of exceptions (I'm cutting it off at 2010 to give us a few NBA seasons for each player to evaluate).

2003--the gold standard for draft class top 5's.

5. Dwyane Wade (won a championship three years later, top 3 SG of the last ten years)
4. Chris Bosh (20-10 as a first option, excellent stretch 5 3rd option on a championship team)
3. Carmelo Anthony (one of the best scorers in the game, has single handedly brought every one of his teams into the playoffs every year he's been in the league)
2. Darko Milicic (great on paper, awful in real life. Reasons behind the draft choice has been covered by everyone and their mother).
1. LeBron James (disappeared, no one ever hears anything about this guy ever.)


2004:
5.Devin Harris--played all right for a while. One-time All Star, before a series of injuries derailed his career.
4.Shaun Livingston--Who? Well, it was a Clipper's pick.
3.Ben Gordon--Never an all-star, but the only NBA player to win Sixth Man of The Year as a rookie, when he averaged 15/2/1 in 22 minutes a game.
2. Emeka Okafor--Decent defensive Center, NBA GM's love size.
1. Dwight Howard--known for his loyalty and serious nature.


5.Raymond Felton--plays well on the Knicks, and basically nowhere else.
4.Chris Paul--Often cited as the best PG in the league.
3.Deron Williams--was option 1A to best PG in the league before he got Jerry Sloan fired and Sloan stole all of D-Will's motivation, Leprechaun style.
2. Marvin Williams--Servicable Wing, terrible GM decision.
1. Andrew Bogut--freak injury history, great defensive center. Hilarious accent when exhausted.

2006:
5. Shelden Williams--the Hawks management was batting the opposite of 1,000 here.
4.Tyrus Thomas--The trailblazers drafted him 4th, but ended up trading him and another forward for Aldridge.
3. Adam Morrison--Mustaches are bad for basketball.
2. LaMarcus Aldrige--20-10 guy, perennial should-be All-Star.
1. Andrea Bargiani--HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

2006 players that would later go on to succeed:

Brandon Roy (#6)
Rudy Gay (#8)
J.J. Reddick (#11)
Rajon Rondo (#21)
Kyle Lowry (#24)
Leon Powe (#49)

2007
5. Jeff Green--traded to Seattle for Ray Allen.
4.Mike Conley Jr.--solid starting PG, great hands on defense.
3.Al Horford--another perennial should-be All Star.
2.Kevin Durant--who?
1.Greg Oden--biggest issue on draft night was the possibility of reinjuring his broken hand. Destroys both knees in response.

2008
5. Kevin Love
4. Russell Westbrook
3. O.J. Mayo
2. Michael Beasley
1. Derrick Rose

2009
5. Ricky Rubio
4. Tyreke Evans
3. James Harden
2. Hasheem Thabeet (GM's love size.)
1. Blake Griffin

2010
5. DeMarcus Cousins
4. Wesley Johnson
3. Derrick Favors
2. Evan Turner
1. John Wall

  I don't know that the improvement you're looking for is significant enough to call anything other than noise.

Maybe, but egregious swings-and-misses are far less common than they were even ten years ago, owing to a lot more due diligence from the smarter front offices.

David Kahn's no longer a GM. The guy in Toronto is out. The Sixers have a new GM. The Grizzlies have an entirely new team at the top.

We know way more about draftees now than we did ten years ago. We have a smart front office. My belief is that the odds that the Celtics will make a solid draft pick if they're in the top eight are much higher than them having a winning season this year.

  Again, it's not the huge shift you think it is. Some bad GMs have left, sure, but they weren't the first bad GMs and won't be the last. In any case, if there were anything to your claim it would be more of an argument against tanking than for it as the odds of a good player dropping at all would be worse than they have been historically.

[LooseCannon]

Maybe, but egregious swings-and-misses are far less common than they were even ten years ago, owing to a lot more due diligence from the smarter front offices.

David Kahn's no longer a GM. The guy in Toronto is out. The Sixers have a new GM. The Grizzlies have an entirely new team at the top.

We know way more about draftees now than we did ten years ago. We have a smart front office. My belief is that the odds that the Celtics will make a solid draft pick if they're in the top eight are much higher than them having a winning season this year.

  Again, it's not the huge shift you think it is. Some bad GMs have left, sure, but they weren't the first bad GMs and won't be the last. In any case, if there were anything to your claim it would be more of an argument against tanking than for it as the odds of a good player dropping at all would be worse than they have been historically.

One problem is that the Celtics already made a huge trade with the Nets (and are looking to dump some ex-Nets) and are not allowed to trade with the Clippers for a year, so that is two of the franchises who have a track record of making bad trades.  Maybe the Clippers will be better under Doc, but the Nets have a crazy Russian billionaire who may drive the team to some bad deals in hopes of making a splash.

[mmmmm]

The only sure way to get high lottery picks is to be terrible for at least one or two seasons.

Two things:

1) Nope.  You can also get high lottery picks by owning (via trade) the picks of other teams that are terrible for one or two seasons.

2) False premise that the desire is for high lottery picks.   I would submit that the desire is for the talent that high lottery picks can select.

Simple fact:  The vast majority of title teams did not become title contenders until they acquired someone else's 'high lottery' talent via trade of free agency.

[Yogi]

Tim Duncan was drafted in 1997.  The Spurs landing Duncan in 97 has little to do with their finals appearance in 2013.  To argue that the only way we can land a player comparable to 37 year old Tim Duncan who plays 28 minutes a game is by tanking is nonsense.

[PhoSita]

Tim Duncan was drafted in 1997.  The Spurs landing Duncan in 97 has little to do with their finals appearance in 2013.  To argue that the only way we can land a player comparable to 37 year old Tim Duncan who plays 28 minutes a game is by tanking is nonsense.

Nonsense?

In fact, it makes perfect literal sense.

Tim Duncan was drafted in 1997.  He has never since entered free agency or given any indication of his intention to play for any team other than the Spurs.  The Spurs, for their part, have always re-signed him with enthusiasm and have never shown any interest in trading him.

So yeah, if you wanted to get Tim Duncan this past season, you needed to draft him in 1997.  Tim Duncan was, at age 37, the most important player on a team that came within a hair's breadth of winning an NBA title against a superstar-laden juggernaut.

Indeed, the Spurs drafting Duncan in 1997 had a TON to do with them making the Finals in 2013.  They had to make a lot of other really smart moves in between, but Tim Duncan is the one factor that made it possible.  The only other factor that comes close in importance is their coach, Greg Popovich.

Now, I get that your point is that you don't HAVE to draft a guy like Tim Duncan to get a Hall of Famer who is on the tail end of his prime, or just plain in decline.  That's technically true.  After all, the Celtics took advantage of a set of circumstances that made Kevin Garnett available for trade.

Still, Tim Duncan is on a different level than even Garnett.  And even at age 37, Tim Duncan was one of the very best players in the league.  Guys like that are never available in a trade.  When they're available in free agency, they join the Lakers or the Heat.

[D.o.s.]

There was a period of time when Tim Duncan was considering heading to the Magic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100924&page=1

Duncan said the Magic, who reportedly offered him a multi-year deal worth $67 million, made his decision difficult.

“Orlando had a lot to offer,” Duncan told a packed news conference at a San Antonio hotel. “I had a good time and I met some great people down there, but I decided to stay here and keep going for another championship.”

Orlando ‘Had A Lot to Offer’

Orlando wined and dined Duncan and fellow NBA superstar Grant Hill for a week earlier this month. Hill has announced his plans to leave his current team, the Detroit Pistons, and sign with the Magic.

Duncan was the Most Valuable Player of the 1999 championship series against the New York Knicks, but because of a knee injury watched from the sidelines this year as the Spurs bowed to the Phoenix Suns in the first round of the playoffs.

He said San Antonio was well positioned to win another championship in the upcoming season.

“I think we have a great opportunity, with (center) David (Robinson) and myself, and I think with free agency we’ll be able to pick up some great free agents, and go out there and do it again,” he said.

In the past few weeks, signs and billboards proclaiming “Stay, Tim, stay” have sprouted around San Antonio in an outpouring of support.

Duncan called the campaign “overwhelming” and said it contributed to his decision to stay.

Tim Duncan, Grant Hill, and (possibly) Tracy McGrady?

That would've been quite the big three.

[Tr1boy]

Tanking is a digusting, inhonorable, cheap way to get a high pick to become a good team. Totally unacceptable

Well look at the spurs with duncan, cavs with the heat etc. Who cares. You dont stoop to that level.

We have a crap load of picks the next several year to at least buy a few lotto pick anyways. Just play hard, play to win

[PhoSita]

http://www.brewhoop.com/2013/9/9/4710584/tanking-is-a-problem-so-why-are-the-milwaukee-bucks-the-bad-guys

The ultimate goal of any professional sports franchise is to win a championship. With minor quibbling, I think most can agree on that. But the ultimate goal of athletic competition is to win every time out. If the system in place rewards those teams or individuals who betray that goal, that system has a problem. That's what the tanking problem is all about.

It's why I (and many others) have a hard time feeling good about demanding a full-on tank job regardless of the potential prize. It's not about the uncertainty; modern sports are increasingly about playing the percentages. It's about what it takes to get there. Call it a principle thing--that sounds better than "stubborn" or "naive".

The Bucks are guilty of being too principled, or too stupid, or some combination of the two.

It's time to get honest about the issue at hand. That means accepting a few truths so we can stop talking about them. High draft picks are no guarantee of future success, or even acquiring good players. They are, however, more likely to provide the latter, which is conclusively linked to the former.

[Tr1boy]

http://www.brewhoop.com/2013/9/9/4710584/tanking-is-a-problem-so-why-are-the-milwaukee-bucks-the-bad-guys

The ultimate goal of any professional sports franchise is to win a championship. With minor quibbling, I think most can agree on that. But the ultimate goal of athletic competition is to win every time out. If the system in place rewards those teams or individuals who betray that goal, that system has a problem. That's what the tanking problem is all about.

It's why I (and many others) have a hard time feeling good about demanding a full-on tank job regardless of the potential prize. It's not about the uncertainty; modern sports are increasingly about playing the percentages. It's about what it takes to get there. Call it a principle thing--that sounds better than "stubborn" or "naive".

The Bucks are guilty of being too principled, or too stupid, or some combination of the two.

It's time to get honest about the issue at hand. That means accepting a few truths so we can stop talking about them. High draft picks are no guarantee of future success, or even acquiring good players. They are, however, more likely to provide the latter, which is conclusively linked to the former.

Sorry, don't care how philosophical or "truth" bending you want to get , but bottom line is, tanking is stupid.

Its telling someone who wants to win to play so so , bc we are soon to bring the "Savior" to take us to another level.

I mean what is that??

If the celtics play well, we can attract a nice FA or trade for one or two like in 2007-2008. That is a more surer and acceptable way to be a good team.

Look at Indiana pacers or the Grizzlies. Do they have any high draft picks in their lineup??  Look how well they been playing after years of building a winning environment.

[fairweatherfan]

I feel like "tanking" has been used so much lately that it's basically lost all meaning.  Like when you hear a word so many times that it sounds like nonsense for awhile.

[PhoSita]

I feel like "tanking" has been used so much lately that it's basically lost all meaning.  Like when you hear a word so many times that it sounds like nonsense for awhile.

I'm convinced that 90% of the disagreements that fuel debate around here (lately) stem from people using the same words over and over but meaning very different things.

[PhoSita]

http://www.brewhoop.com/2013/9/9/4710584/tanking-is-a-problem-so-why-are-the-milwaukee-bucks-the-bad-guys

The ultimate goal of any professional sports franchise is to win a championship. With minor quibbling, I think most can agree on that. But the ultimate goal of athletic competition is to win every time out. If the system in place rewards those teams or individuals who betray that goal, that system has a problem. That's what the tanking problem is all about.

It's why I (and many others) have a hard time feeling good about demanding a full-on tank job regardless of the potential prize. It's not about the uncertainty; modern sports are increasingly about playing the percentages. It's about what it takes to get there. Call it a principle thing--that sounds better than "stubborn" or "naive".

The Bucks are guilty of being too principled, or too stupid, or some combination of the two.

It's time to get honest about the issue at hand. That means accepting a few truths so we can stop talking about them. High draft picks are no guarantee of future success, or even acquiring good players. They are, however, more likely to provide the latter, which is conclusively linked to the former.

Sorry, don't care how philosophical or "truth" bending you want to get , but bottom line is, tanking is stupid.

Its telling someone who wants to win to play so so , bc we are soon to bring the "Savior" to take us to another level.

I mean what is that??

If the celtics play well, we can attract a nice FA or trade for one or two like in 2007-2008. That is a more surer and acceptable way to be a good team.

Look at Indiana pacers or the Grizzlies. Do they have any high draft picks in their lineup??  Look how well they been playing after years of building a winning environment.

I don't think the Pacers and Grizzlies are particularly effective examples to support your viewpoint.  Both teams spent years and years being mediocre or outright terrible before finally having some playoff success.

If anything, they ought to have reached this point sooner.


Also, I'm not sure if you're responding to anything from the article that I linked to, or even the part that I quoted.  It doesn't seem like you understood it, if you are.

[chambers]

http://www.brewhoop.com/2013/9/9/4710584/tanking-is-a-problem-so-why-are-the-milwaukee-bucks-the-bad-guys

The ultimate goal of any professional sports franchise is to win a championship. With minor quibbling, I think most can agree on that. But the ultimate goal of athletic competition is to win every time out. If the system in place rewards those teams or individuals who betray that goal, that system has a problem. That's what the tanking problem is all about.

It's why I (and many others) have a hard time feeling good about demanding a full-on tank job regardless of the potential prize. It's not about the uncertainty; modern sports are increasingly about playing the percentages. It's about what it takes to get there. Call it a principle thing--that sounds better than "stubborn" or "naive".

The Bucks are guilty of being too principled, or too stupid, or some combination of the two.

It's time to get honest about the issue at hand. That means accepting a few truths so we can stop talking about them. High draft picks are no guarantee of future success, or even acquiring good players. They are, however, more likely to provide the latter, which is conclusively linked to the former.

Sorry, don't care how philosophical or "truth" bending you want to get , but bottom line is, tanking is stupid.

Its telling someone who wants to win to play so so , bc we are soon to bring the "Savior" to take us to another level.

I mean what is that??

If the celtics play well, we can attract a nice FA or trade for one or two like in 2007-2008. That is a more surer and acceptable way to be a good team.

Look at Indiana pacers or the Grizzlies. Do they have any high draft picks in their lineup??  Look how well they been playing after years of building a winning environment.

So what if Danny builds a roster that's designed to lose, but our players play as hard as they can and develop and get better under a great coach with lots of playing time.

[D.o.s.]

To be perfectly honest, I'm always baffled by the idea that people think tanking happens with the players. I always put it on the coaches and management.

[PhoSita]

To be perfectly honest, I'm always baffled by the idea that people think tanking happens with the players. I always put it on the coaches and management.

That's one of the things I'm talking about when I say people are using words to mean different things.

Tanking doesn't seem nearly so morally reprehensible when it's just an organization strategy of prioritizing something other than winning in the current season.

I don't think players or coaches actually "throw" games very often.  But teams "throw" seasons all the time.