Do we really need to tank......

[Celtics18]

How is this even an argument?  One side says they want this on the Celtics:

Star freshman forward Julius Randle led five Wildcats in double figures with a devastating debut: 23 points and 15 rebounds, five on the offensive glass, in 26 minutes. He finished two shy in both points (Terrence Jones) and rebounds (Sam Bowie) of school records for a first career game.

"Julius Randle is a specimen," UNC-Asheville coach Nick McDevitt said. "He is very, very good. Rarely do you see a guy with that kind of size and athleticism and skill level. Coach Cal's going to have fun coaching him."

And the other side says that all we need is for Pressy, Crawford, Brooks, Lee, Humphries, Gerald Wallace, Brooks, Bradley and Iversen to have a "winning attitude."

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I am claiming that we may have the assets (one proven star, a decent complementary scorer, some good, young developing talent, a bunch of first round picks in the near future, a hefty, veteran expiring contract, a trade exception--which I'm admittedly not sure how works, owners who are willing to spend the money when they have to and who trust their GM) to be able to improve this team enough to get back to contender status within the next couple of years without having to tank this season.

I find it interesting that you left out the team's five most valuable players when presenting the "anti-tankers' argument." 

I would say that you have absolutely no grasp on what "the other side's" argument is, or you are just purposefully misrepresenting it.   

[LooseCannon]

Because why not be a first round exit in the Playoffs for years? Yeah, great idea. Let's be in the worst situation you can be in in the NBA.

However, being a first-round exit for a couple of years in a row with a lot of young players who have upside and can improve, a flexible cap situation that permits deals, and a stash of extra first-round picks is a very good situation to be in.

[jambr380]

I just don't see the point in trying our hardest to win every game. 'Tanking' seems a little extreme, but when you have a chance to pick up a franchise changing player in a draft where there are several of them, I really don't see the effect that an extra 5-10 wins this year will have on our future.

As a die-hard Celtics fan since I could first open my eyes to watch them on tv, I actually felt myself struggling with whether or not I wanted them to win last night...while I hate that feeling, I hate not being an elite team more.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

No.

A lot of people think the only solution ito build a contender in the future is getting a high draft pick. Dont get me wrong, that actually works, but to cheat the system and lose on purpose for the sake of getting that pick is cheap.

We can build a contending team by drafting smart, signing smart and developing players. I kept on mentioning Indiana. They had no top 5 picks since the 80's. They dod not have a top 5 pick when they were missing the playoffs for a few years after Reggie and Jermaine Oneal was gone, and Danny Granger was their best player. They drafted great, had some quality signings and now they are contenders. I dont see why we cant do the same, especially witj tje plethora of assets we already have.

Rebuilding's side effect is losing games. If it yields us a top pick, great. But even with a not so talented team, you dont try to lose games. It ruins the confidence and the psyche of players and it kills team chemistry. Granted our team may not be good enough to win 35 games, but it doesnt mean we should settle for loses and worse, encourage it. We play to win, regardless of who we have and what the outcome will be. Pride and competitiveness is a better championshil building block than a CHANCE of getting a top pick.

[Phil125]

We are a player away and I do not see that player out there in free agency.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

We are a player away and I do not see that player out there in free agency.

We have plenty of draft picks, young guys who are developing nicely. Veterans in Bass who's playing very good.

We can package that for that one player away, or two maybe, depending on how Danny can out GM another, and I believe he can.

[BASS_THUMPER]

after tonight and yall
still ask that question?

[VitorSullyandKOFan]

We are not tanking but the talent will catch and we will lose many games.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I think the point of this thread is there is no need to trade away any further talent than we already have, or force any more losses than we can't get organically to set about building the next contender. If this lot win 40 as is i'm fine with that. If they who 20 playing their best basketball, I'll be fine with that too.

[kozlodoev]

Do we need to tank? No, we need to make sure we know what our players are made of (because we don't, really, with a collection of former second guns and rookies) -- and we're not going to do this by telling him to lose games.

[Clench123]

YES! YES! YES!  There's no other way.  We're not good enough to even contend.  No way.  Tank

[SHAQATTACK]

Do we need to?

Yes


Will we?

No

[SHAQATTACK]

Celtics will always play hard against the Lakers....

It just in h DNA.   

[manl_lui]

No.

A lot of people think the only solution ito build a contender in the future is getting a high draft pick. Dont get me wrong, that actually works, but to cheat the system and lose on purpose for the sake of getting that pick is cheap.

We can build a contending team by drafting smart, signing smart and developing players. I kept on mentioning Indiana. They had no top 5 picks since the 80's. They dod not have a top 5 pick when they were missing the playoffs for a few years after Reggie and Jermaine Oneal was gone, and Danny Granger was their best player. They drafted great, had some quality signings and now they are contenders. I dont see why we cant do the same, especially witj tje plethora of assets we already have.

Rebuilding's side effect is losing games. If it yields us a top pick, great. But even with a not so talented team, you dont try to lose games. It ruins the confidence and the psyche of players and it kills team chemistry. Granted our team may not be good enough to win 35 games, but it doesnt mean we should settle for loses and worse, encourage it. We play to win, regardless of who we have and what the outcome will be. Pride and competitiveness is a better championshil building block than a CHANCE of getting a top pick.

+1 on that...I hate tanking, it's cheap and takes the joy out of the game. You play hard to win, not the other way around. Do I believe we are tanking? no, but I do believe Danny put together a team that is mediocre to win enough games to be 8th seed or it's bad enough to play hard enough  but lose games. I want to see a rebuild where the players are all playing hard

[guava_wrench]

I find most tank talk silly. Baseball teams trade their best players to minor-leaguers midseason all the time. Teams give up on winning all the time. It is misleading to talk as if teams on the court are losing on purpose. They are trying to win every night. But a smart GM is willing to give up on a season to acquire assets. It would be stupid to do otherwise.

Whatever players you have will play hard. They don't get better contracts for tanking, so players don't tank for the draft. But GMs give up their best players and decide to prepare for the future all the time. Ainge did this.

Looking at KG and Pierce in NJ, it is starting to look like we were doomed either way. Both are very near the end. Even with them, we would not have been that good.

Talking as if players are losing on purpose is just fans talking hypothetical nonsense.