Thoughts

[Clench123]

If you don't think tanking this season to draft a stud that could help the franchise win starting next year then you're crazy.  Again making the playoffs does nothing for us this year. Limit minutes, trade away the high salaried players and do whatever means necessary to land a top 5 pick. I would much rather have a losing season this year with a shot at being a dark horse next year with a lineup of a healthy rondo, draft pick, Green, Sully and whoever we have at center plus Bass, Olynyk and Bradley off the bench then the team we have right now.

I concur.  100%.

[moiso]

If you don't think tanking this season to draft a stud that could help the franchise win starting next year then you're crazy.  Again making the playoffs does nothing for us this year. Limit minutes, trade away the high salaried players and do whatever means necessary to land a top 5 pick. I would much rather have a losing season this year with a shot at being a dark horse next year with a lineup of a healthy rondo, draft pick, Green, Sully and whoever we have at center plus Bass, Olynyk and Bradley off the bench then the team we have right now.

I concur.  100%.

I'm all for Ainge tanking but I don't really want to see Stevens and the players in on it.  I don't really agree with the limiting of minutes aspect. 

[manl_lui]

If you don't think tanking this season to draft a stud that could help the franchise win starting next year then you're crazy.  Again making the playoffs does nothing for us this year. Limit minutes, trade away the high salaried players and do whatever means necessary to land a top 5 pick. I would much rather have a losing season this year with a shot at being a dark horse next year with a lineup of a healthy rondo, draft pick, Green, Sully and whoever we have at center plus Bass, Olynyk and Bradley off the bench then the team we have right now.

I concur.  100%.

you're not wrong at all, it's just it's very very very hard to root for your favorite team to lose. I understand that tanking will net us a top 5 pick, but I prefer the whole "wow, we really suck", vs "wow, they really tried to lose that game"

I believe that Danny built a team to lose this year. I am still rooting for the team to win games, but understand the team is constructed to win 20ish games.

I like to see our players develop and TRYING to win games.

[clover]

If you don't think tanking this season to draft a stud that could help the franchise win starting next year then you're crazy.  Again making the playoffs does nothing for us this year. Limit minutes, trade away the high salaried players and do whatever means necessary to land a top 5 pick. I would much rather have a losing season this year with a shot at being a dark horse next year with a lineup of a healthy rondo, draft pick, Green, Sully and whoever we have at center plus Bass, Olynyk and Bradley off the bench then the team we have right now.

I concur.  100%.

you're not wrong at all, it's just it's very very very hard to root for your favorite team to lose. I understand that tanking will net us a top 5 pick, but I prefer the whole "wow, we really suck", vs "wow, they really tried to lose that game"

I believe that Danny built a team to lose this year. I am still rooting for the team to win games, but understand the team is constructed to win 20ish games.

I like to see our players develop and TRYING to win games.

I'm rooting for overall losing. I can feel okay with a few wins here and there, however, so this year has been fairly emotionally satisfying in my book.

What I like is 1) Stevens playing the young guys, and 2) their being in almost every game.

I'd like them to lose a little more frequently, however, and I don't see how that happens when Rondo returns next month unless a trade or two goes down pretty quickly.

And if they're just too good and can't keep themselves out of the playoffs, I'll just hope that's because JS, KO, JG, and AB have all proven to be the real deal--rather than because Bass and Humphries have given too many B+ performances.

[guava_wrench]

Why isn't BS playing Brooks?  Is he injured or just in the dog house?

Perhaps because he isn't good?

As far as the playoffs go, we fans think too much about these issues. The players on the court will play to win. Whatever happens happens. We lack talent, but so do many teams in the Eastern Conference it seems.

I don't see Ainge talking minutes much with Stevens unless there is a trade brewing or they have made a decision about re-signing (or not) a player next season. Without doing that, the team will put forth their best effort.

The truth is, if you want to develop the guys on the team, you need to implement good systems to help train them on how to play in the NBA.

[Rondohara]

This topic has been debated almost to exhaustion, you can find several kinds of anti-tanking arguments in numerous other threads and sites, so I'll give a different type of answer.

This is the Boston Celtics, not some Bobcats/Wizard/notitle trash. All those teams that tank year in/year out will not in their lifetimes combined win as many titles as the Celtics already have.
No one is crazy to pass on a young star, but sometimes the cost is too much. If it costs the Celtics honor, soul and a lot more, then that's too much.

[guava_wrench]

you're not wrong at all, it's just it's very very very hard to root for your favorite team to lose. I understand that tanking will net us a top 5 pick, but I prefer the whole "wow, we really suck", vs "wow, they really tried to lose that game"

I believe that Danny built a team to lose this year. I am still rooting for the team to win games, but understand the team is constructed to win 20ish games.

I like to see our players develop and TRYING to win games.

Agree completely.

[mmmmm]

San Antonio tanked it for one year when David Robinson was out for to a season ending injury, they ended up with the #1 pick, getting Duncan and Robinson back the following season and see what happened to them.  Theres no reason why we can't hold back Rondo, limit Green and Sully, play the rest to give an effort but in reality be tanking and land a top 5 pick and come back next year with a good team to go forward with.  Making the playoffs with this current team is not going to be beneficial long term because the team as constructed will be drastically different next year.

First off, as wdleehi mentioned, Robinson actually did come back and tried to play - but got hurt again and only THEN was 'shut down' for the season.   But second of all, you can't seriously be suggesting that one-time sequence represents the type of 'business model' that you think a General Manager should try to follow!

San Antonio entered that draft with only a 15.6% chance at Duncan.  That's not a 'strategy'.  That's just happenstance.

You don't run a business that involves hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues on random luck.

Any competent executive will build his strategy around the factors he can control as best as possible.  Yes, luck will always be a factor.  And if your team ends up sucking, you hope for the best of luck with both the lottery balls and with the resulting player you pick.   But purposely aiming for that is not a business strategy.

There are several problems associated with some of what you suggest.

You can't just arbitrarily tell players to pretend to be injured and sit out a season.   Especially with a roster like this current Celtics team which is loaded with guys either trying to establish themselves or to re-establish themselves because their contracts are up in the next year or two.    To hell with the fortunes of the team, not playing can cost these guys big money in their next contract.   So most players have a big self interest in getting on the floor.   No agent is going to want his guy sitting, watching his value decline, if he is healthy.

It also is a very costly proposition for the team.  Obviously losing regular season games will mean a hit at the ticket box.  But also, not making the playoffs is a big chunk of lost revenue.  A team like the Celtics has probably realized something on the order of at least 10% of their gross revenues each year from just the playoff games.    That's a hell of a lot of cash now to give up on the _chance_ that you'll get a decent lottery ball pull AND that the player will not be a bust.

That's the essential problem with this thinking.  It is two gambles stacked on top of each other.

The lottery is a game best played with other team's picks.   You don't have to tank to enjoy the fruits of that.

And we have a whole bunch of other team's picks to play with over the next few years.  One or two of those may end up very valuable. 

So what if we don't get a superstar out of this draft?    Historically, the chances that any of the top 5 picks from 2014 win the title on the team that draft them are tiny.    Far more likely they end up winning the title on some other team.

There is no reason the C's can't be that 'other team'.

[D.o.s.]

You'd have to take in to account our historic lack of free agency draw as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

You'd also have to take into account the way the NBA owners locked the players out after The Decision and The Melodrama and came back with a new CBA that gives many more incentives to players staying with a team as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

You'd also have to take into account the relatively tiny media market, high income tax, and (unless you're big on seasons) mediocre weather that comes with spending time in New England, especially if you're already leaving money on the table by coming to a team that isn't the team that drafted you, as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.

I do agree that trying to duplicate the Spurs 96-97 model is futile, but I definitely believe that they ended up deciding to tank that season after the injuries to Robinson, Person and Sean Elliot.

[jdz101]

Because teams that win 34-49 games are twice as likelyto become a contender within five years as a team with less than 25 wins.

why, though?

My theory is that teams that are bad enough to win 25 or fewer games are in such a talent hole that even if they draft a future All-Star, it takes years to surround that player with a solid supporting cast.  The Celtics this season always struck me as a team that had too much talent to be that bad unless they got hit by injuries, Brad Stevens was a bad coach, or the locker room became a toxic cesspool.

Exactly.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the Cleveland Cavaliers.

How much did we spank them last time we played?

How many top 5 picks have they got in their team right now?

Our team doesn't have a heap of talent but they're well coached, and with the exception of Crawford and Wallace, they're good locker room guys.

In fact Stevens seems to value hard workers over offensive talent, with the prime example being Marshon warming the bench.

[BballTim]

I do agree that trying to duplicate the Spurs 96-97 model is futile, but I definitely believe that they ended up deciding to tank that season after the injuries to Robinson, Person and Sean Elliot.

  This doesn't get brought up a lot but most tanking occurs after a team's season is, for all intents and purposes, over, either because they're in too much of a hole to dig out of or they're pretty much eliminated from the playoffs.

[Jailan34]

Because teams that win 34-49 games are twice as likelyto become a contender within five years as a team with less than 25 wins.

why, though?

My theory is that teams that are bad enough to win 25 or fewer games are in such a talent hole that even if they draft a future All-Star, it takes years to surround that player with a solid supporting cast.  The Celtics this season always struck me as a team that had too much talent to be that bad unless they got hit by injuries, Brad Stevens was a bad coach, or the locker room became a toxic cesspool.

Exactly.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the Cleveland Cavaliers.

How much did we spank them last time we played?

How many top 5 picks have they got in their team right now?

Our team doesn't have a heap of talent but they're well coached, and with the exception of Crawford and Wallace, they're good locker room guys.

In fact Stevens seems to value hard workers over offensive talent, with the prime example being Marshon warming the bench.

That's a management scouting/player evaluation problem not a tanking problem though. Tanking only adds extra risk with the chances of not getting a high enough pick.

 I'm confident Ainge would've made different picks and if Ainge had the picks Cleveland had in that same time period his team wouldn't include waiters, thompson or bennet.

[GreenWarrior]

if you decide to tank how do you accurately judge the players you have?

[D.o.s.]

I do agree that trying to duplicate the Spurs 96-97 model is futile, but I definitely believe that they ended up deciding to tank that season after the injuries to Robinson, Person and Sean Elliot.

  This doesn't get brought up a lot but most tanking occurs after a team's season is, for all intents and purposes, over, either because they're in too much of a hole to dig out of or they're pretty much eliminated from the playoffs.

Or because they're trying to save their draft pick (ala one my favorite tanking examples, the 2012 GSW).

But, yes, tanking a) doesn't always happen before the season starts and b)isn't necessarily an option that the front office is considering during the early going of the season.

[jdz101]

Because teams that win 34-49 games are twice as likelyto become a contender within five years as a team with less than 25 wins.

why, though?

My theory is that teams that are bad enough to win 25 or fewer games are in such a talent hole that even if they draft a future All-Star, it takes years to surround that player with a solid supporting cast.  The Celtics this season always struck me as a team that had too much talent to be that bad unless they got hit by injuries, Brad Stevens was a bad coach, or the locker room became a toxic cesspool.

Exactly.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the Cleveland Cavaliers.

How much did we spank them last time we played?

How many top 5 picks have they got in their team right now?

Our team doesn't have a heap of talent but they're well coached, and with the exception of Crawford and Wallace, they're good locker room guys.

In fact Stevens seems to value hard workers over offensive talent, with the prime example being Marshon warming the bench.

That's a management scouting/player evaluation problem not a tanking problem though. Tanking only adds extra risk with the chances of not getting a high enough pick.

 I'm confident Ainge would've made different picks and if Ainge had the picks Cleveland had in that same time period his team wouldn't include waiters, thompson or bennet.

Say ainge is in Cleveland's position, has the perfect draft every time (which no GM does) and he picks Harrison Barnes instead of waiters, (Lillard isnt realistic with Kyrie there already) and Vucevic instead of Thompson. I still think Cleveland are a pretty average outfit. As for Bennett and this year's draft, noone really jumps out at me as a top-line NBA player.

Not every draft has a Durant or Lebron in it. Not every top 5 draft pick should or will make you a contender. Even though GM's have access to a lot of analysis and professional staff to help them make the right choice, the draft is still essentially a guess. Danny and every other GM is making an educated guess about how players will go in the big league as opposed to how they went in college or high school.

Danny will get as many picks and young assets as possible this year, trade them for veteran franchise guys when the time is right, and build a supporting cast with whatever is left plus other vet mins. We should all know his angle by now.