This Rreminds Me of '07

[Jailan34]

That is why I am pro tank, I'm sure others have different opinions but thats why I'm not playing to win or trying to build chemistry with a team full of players who wont be here next season.

But you're not playing.  It seems obvious to me that the Boston Celtics are playing to win.  If you are still putting all your eggs into the "Parker/Wiggins or Bust" model of rebuilding, my guess is that you are going to end up being severely disappointed. 

If you read the rest of my post you'd know thats not true. Like I said in a previous post, I don't see much of a reason for us to continue to discuss this team.

I read your whole post.  You mentioned having "a great pick" opening up more avenues to acquire a star player.  But, honestly, I think you are mistaken if you think that landing an 8 through 14 pick would make a vast difference in our asset pool to landing a 15 to 20 pick. 

If there's a difference, it's minimal and not worth "tanking" for, in my opinion.

I think there's more to be gained by learning how to play to win and achieve (even moderate) success as a team than there is in tanking for a position in the bottom of the lottery.   

Alright so I'm going to say this for the last time, I'm done talking to you guy.

[GreenWarrior]

I have to agree with you there man, I feel like a lot of people who are against tanking are that was just because "it's wrong" and don't really have much of a plan for the future. That or they think we currently have the assets to make a huge trade for our star.

I've never really heard one feasible anti tanking argument that will get us a star player, which is a requirement to win in the NBA. How anyone could convince themselves that making the playoffs with a losing record because bass, JC, JG are playing well is beyond me.

Keep up the good fight though

I'm not against tanking and one could make the case that we are tanking. We do have a losing record. It just so happens the rest of the EC isn't helping us out.

While losing as many games as we can gets us more ping pong balls. That's all it does. It doesn't guarantee a high pick and it doesn't guarantee us of being any closer to winning a championship.

I think the results could end up being the same weather we decide to tank or continue to be a borderline playoff team because we don't know how things will play out. when you factor in the fact that injuries happen, players come and go, not every player pans out or some guys just don't fit.

It's easy to lose. So why not just try to build chemistry and play to win?

Because to win in the NBA it requires a superstar caliber player. Once we have that fact out of the way there are three ways to acquire one, through the draft, a trade, or through free agency.

Most pro tankers like myself believe we do not have the assets to trade for one, mid round picks and sully won't net us a superstar. We have a team full of complementary players, our best player is a complementary player.

Now to address free agency, this is pretty simple, Boston has never acquired a top tier free agent, I'm not willing to bank on us getting one in a way in which we never have.

Which in my mind leads to the draft. Of course if we have the worst record it doesn't guarantee a top pick, but it does give us the best odds. When a draft like this comes along with 3 potential franchise players the odds get a little better. At the same time, having a great pick then opens up the trade route, we can package that pick with a player for a better player.

That is why I am pro tank, I'm sure others have different opinions but thats why I'm not playing to win or trying to build chemistry with a team full of players who wont be here next season.

It just seems like the "pro-tankers" are looking for a quick fix - the faster we lose the sooner we'll be better. No guarantee off that.

Being a legitimate contender is going to take some time either way. We're going to lose plenty of games with out even trying, We'll get whatever we deserve from that. there's no reason to purposely lose games. Losing breeds losing.

[Rondohara]

Sully is/will be much better then some of the "skeptics" are thinking over here. No, we can't trade him for a major star today, but you wait some more and you'll see other teams lining up and offering us stars (older ones) for him (that may seem too optimistic, but that is my analysis). I'm not looking to trade him though, still on a rookie deal and will have awesome production. (I know that predictions have a chance of going wrong, but predictions are made for what "appear" to have the higher chance.)
This isn't like 2007 where will get the Big 3 in this off-season, but we'll get the contending possibility soon enough. 

And all this tanking "argumentation" (parroting) like it's "the only chance", it's not only "the only chance", but tanking has in fact a pretty bad chance, less then 5% of all teams that tanked ended up getting a championship out of it and no amount of (repeated) arguments will change those facts.

[guava_wrench]

I think there's more to be gained by learning how to play to win ...

I'm skeptical that exists. Get the players and you will win. Some guys are 'winners', even when they lose. Look at Noah his first year with the Bulls. Dude was a winner on a losing team.

You don't 'learn how to win' by winning. You learn how to be effective in the NBA by playing in the NBA. The rest is sports cliche. When a bunch of former winners end up on the same team and lose, like the Lakers last season, did they forget how to win? I am not a fan of empty sports cliches.

[guava_wrench]

And all this tanking "argumentation" (parroting) like it's "the only chance", it's not only "the only chance", but tanking has in fact a pretty bad chance, less then 5% of all teams that tanked ended up getting a championship out of it and no amount of (repeated) arguments will change those facts.

In fact, no choice whatsoever is "the only chance". But some choices give us the best bang for our buck. No matter what we do, odds are we don't win a title in the next 10 years because there are already transcendent players in the league and they aren't on our team.

And your 5% number is just made up. But that doesn't matter. Because San Antonio was rewarded with multiple titles for tanking.

On a side note, how many championships over the last 20 years had a #1 pick at the core of the teams success? How many titles do Duncan, Shaq and Lebron have? How many teams have made it to the finals on the back of #1 picks, though they eventually lost? We have Duncan, Shaq and Lebron again, along with Howard. If we add #2 picks, we may see quite a few more Lebron and Durant appearances in the finals.

The whole taking discussion is moot. We have our team. The team is going to play hard no matter who is in the draft. If Danny Ainge feels that long term, trading a player who contributes this season for someone who will contribute even more in 2 seasons (though perhaps not now), he might make that trade. You might call it tanking. Whatever. All it is is a GM having a plan to prepare the team to be good in a few years and accumulating the assets that can contribute then. Ainge's moves will likely be limited by his desire to not completely alienate the fanbase, so we won't see moves where he ships out talent for nothing. But we will see value now traded for expected value later.