If the Season Ended Today

[PhoSita]

  For starters, players would probably be more willing to go to/stay in Boston if the team was fairly good as opposed to being bottom feeders.

Eh, I think players care more about the talent on the team and the reputation of the coaching staff / management than how many games the team won the year before.  Guys will want to play for Brad Stevens and with Rondo / Sullinger whether or not the Celtics stumble into the playoffs with 30-35 wins.

If the Celtics get highly touted player in this draft, I think that would attract people here, too.

  I would expect that good players have more of an aversion to being on lottery teams than you imagine.

I would expect that good players have an aversion to being on bad teams.  I've said all along -- the Celtics will still be a bad team if they finish with 35 or so wins. 

Making or missing the playoffs doesn't really have any bearing on that.

[PhoSita]

Here's why I find the "misconceptions about tankers" thread absurd when PhoSita posed "tankers" as victims. The vocal "tankers" hold very strong positions and are the ones dogmatically misrepresenting the positions of the "non-tankers".

Look, I know it can be a challenge.  I do.

But I think you'll find, if you pay very, very close attention, that LarBrd33 and I are not the same person.

[nickagneta]

Tanking begets losing.

Where does tanking stop.

This year, gotta tank for a franchise cornerstone because the draft is so deep. We tank. We lose a lot. Draft 6th and the guy ends up being a bust.

Next year, we suck because no free agents signed here, the draft pick busted out and injuries led to another bad year.

We end up 5th in the draft and get a decent player but no All-Star. Again no free agents come and we are not good.

We get lucky in the draft and get the 2nd pick in a bad draft but next year is supposed to be all about these 2 high schoolers who are supposed to be the next Duncan and next MJ. These guys are great. So the team is devoid of high end talent. The last few drafts haven't ended up being the bonus of high end talent that people thought, season ticket sales are down, and something needs to be done as the team is starting to lose money

So this time they really tank again to end up with one of these two stars. We are awful. We set a team record for losses and after the draft lottery we end up with the 4th pick, can't draft the "sure thing superstars" and then what?

The only thing to do is start planning the next tank job.

Tanking begets losing.

[D.o.s.]

That's just as fatalistic and knee-jerk as the posters who're convinced that tanking is the only way to land a franchise player.

[nickagneta]

That's just as fatalistic and knee-jerk as the posters who're convinced that tanking is the only way to land a franchise player.

Except there are a lot more stories(a ton more) of this "knee jerk fatalistic viewpoint" coming to pass than that of a team landing their superstar and going on to be a championship team with that superstar.

EDIT: My knee jerk fatalistic scenario has happened twice while I have been a Celtic fan. If that story is too fatalistic perhaps its a good thing I didn't bring out the story where a team drafts a superstar with a #2 pick and he dies before he even signs a contract with the team.

[D.o.s.]

That really doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Especially since you're not explaining what you think tanking is. Is it divesting your team of talent? Is it sitting healthy players? How long do you need to tank for for it to count?

The 2012 Warriors tanked. I wouldn't say that anything about ensuring that they kept the Harrison Barnes pick helped foster a culture of losing.

The 2002 Cavs tanked, and had four years of playoff contention, making the Finals in the process. No culture of losing there.

etc.

The future is not determined by the past.

[nickagneta]

That really doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Especially since you're not explaining what you think tanking is. Is it divesting your team of talent? Is it sitting healthy players? How long do you need to tank for for it to count?

The 2012 Warriors tanked. I wouldn't say that anything about ensuring that they kept the Harrison Barnes pick helped foster a culture of losing.

The 2002 Cavs tanked, and had four years of playoff contention, making the Finals in the process. No culture of losing there.

etc.

The future is not determined by the past.

Nor should the past ever be ignored and not learned from. Tanking has created a lot more teams stuck for years in the bottom of the league than it has champions.

[D.o.s.]

That really doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Especially since you're not explaining what you think tanking is. Is it divesting your team of talent? Is it sitting healthy players? How long do you need to tank for for it to count?

The 2012 Warriors tanked. I wouldn't say that anything about ensuring that they kept the Harrison Barnes pick helped foster a culture of losing.

The 2002 Cavs tanked, and had four years of playoff contention, making the Finals in the process. No culture of losing there.

etc.

The future is not determined by the past.

Nor should the past ever be ignored and not learned from. Tanking has created a lot more teams stuck for years in the bottom of the league than it has champions.

But you're creating a false dichotomy there by saying that unless you win a championship tanking is a waste of time.

You're also still refusing to define "tanking," so there's a possibility that I might agree with you and we're just arguing over definitions.

[nickagneta]

That really doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Especially since you're not explaining what you think tanking is. Is it divesting your team of talent? Is it sitting healthy players? How long do you need to tank for for it to count?

The 2012 Warriors tanked. I wouldn't say that anything about ensuring that they kept the Harrison Barnes pick helped foster a culture of losing.

The 2002 Cavs tanked, and had four years of playoff contention, making the Finals in the process. No culture of losing there.

etc.

The future is not determined by the past.

Nor should the past ever be ignored and not learned from. Tanking has created a lot more teams stuck for years in the bottom of the league than it has champions.

But you're creating a false dichotomy there by saying that unless you win a championship tanking is a waste of time.

You're also still refusing to define "tanking," so there's a possibility that I might agree with you and we're just arguing over definitions.

I never created that dichotomy because I never said those words. All I said is that tanking begets losing. The end result is losing. And if the numbers are to be believed tanking begets more tanking and more losing.

It could lead to a championship because it has but that's the exception to the rule and usually happens because of other scenarios that surround the tank.

And, I am not going to define tanking. That's been done here enough. I think the blog knows what tanking is.

[beantownboy171]

Tanking begets losing.

Where does tanking stop.

This year, gotta tank for a franchise cornerstone because the draft is so deep. We tank. We lose a lot. Draft 6th and the guy ends up being a bust.

Next year, we suck because no free agents signed here, the draft pick busted out and injuries led to another bad year.

We end up 5th in the draft and get a decent player but no All-Star. Again no free agents come and we are not good.

We get lucky in the draft and get the 2nd pick in a bad draft but next year is supposed to be all about these 2 high schoolers who are supposed to be the next Duncan and next MJ. These guys are great. So the team is devoid of high end talent. The last few drafts haven't ended up being the bonus of high end talent that people thought, season ticket sales are down, and something needs to be done as the team is starting to lose money

So this time they really tank again to end up with one of these two stars. We are awful. We set a team record for losses and after the draft lottery we end up with the 4th pick, can't draft the "sure thing superstars" and then what?

The only thing to do is start planning the next tank job.

Tanking begets losing.

That can be true. But that statement ignores a lot a of the details that effect the celtic's situation. The fact that the injury to our best player has made this record possible, the fact that we already have a young core with at least three players (Sullinger, Bradley and Olynyk) who will continue to improve, and that we have 6 draft picks in the next 3 years that can be used to bring in other pieces if we need to.

We won't have another shot at top 5 pick, and the fact that we have our ONLY shot at a top 5 pick coincides with the best draft of the decade make this year a pretty sweet situation.

Things could go wrong, for sure. But I'd be more worried if I were the Bucks or the Magic. Because adding Parker, Wiggins, Randle, Smart, Exum or Embiid with a fully healed Rondo creates the potential for a quick one year turn around.

[D.o.s.]

That really doesn't change anything about what I've said.

Especially since you're not explaining what you think tanking is. Is it divesting your team of talent? Is it sitting healthy players? How long do you need to tank for for it to count?

The 2012 Warriors tanked. I wouldn't say that anything about ensuring that they kept the Harrison Barnes pick helped foster a culture of losing.

The 2002 Cavs tanked, and had four years of playoff contention, making the Finals in the process. No culture of losing there.

etc.

The future is not determined by the past.

Nor should the past ever be ignored and not learned from. Tanking has created a lot more teams stuck for years in the bottom of the league than it has champions.

But you're creating a false dichotomy there by saying that unless you win a championship tanking is a waste of time.

You're also still refusing to define "tanking," so there's a possibility that I might agree with you and we're just arguing over definitions.

I never created that dichotomy because I never said those words. All I said is that tanking begets losing. The end result is losing. And if the numbers are to be believed tanking begets more tanking and more losing.

It could lead to a championship because it has but that's the exception to the rule and usually happens because of other scenarios that surround the tank.

And, I am not going to define tanking. That's been done here enough. I think the blog knows what tanking is.

29 teams fail to win a championship every year. Most of those teams have tanked. You're rigging the deck because there will, inevitably, be more teams at the bottom of the league than champions.


Anyway, How do you feel about losing games to keep a draft pick? Or losing games to try and land a more advantageous first round playoff match up? You don't support trading your best player for assets?

All of that begets losing?

I'll give you a TP for a nicely empty platitude, though.

[PhoSita]

Tanking begets losing.

Where does tanking stop.

This year, gotta tank for a franchise cornerstone because the draft is so deep. We tank. We lose a lot. Draft 6th and the guy ends up being a bust.

Next year, we suck because no free agents signed here, the draft pick busted out and injuries led to another bad year.

We end up 5th in the draft and get a decent player but no All-Star. Again no free agents come and we are not good.

We get lucky in the draft and get the 2nd pick in a bad draft but next year is supposed to be all about these 2 high schoolers who are supposed to be the next Duncan and next MJ. These guys are great. So the team is devoid of high end talent. The last few drafts haven't ended up being the bonus of high end talent that people thought, season ticket sales are down, and something needs to be done as the team is starting to lose money

So this time they really tank again to end up with one of these two stars. We are awful. We set a team record for losses and after the draft lottery we end up with the 4th pick, can't draft the "sure thing superstars" and then what?

The only thing to do is start planning the next tank job.

Tanking begets losing.

It would be just as easy to tell a compelling story about how finishing in the middle begets finishing in the middle. 

In fact, telling stories is easy to support whatever narrative best fits your argument.


The only constant I see across the board is that teams that are managed well with wealthy, competitive owners tend to find their way back up to the top and teams with crappy management and / or cheap owners tend to find their way back to the bottom.

[LarBrd33]

Here's why I find the "misconceptions about tankers" thread absurd when PhoSita posed "tankers" as victims. The vocal "tankers" hold very strong positions and are the ones dogmatically misrepresenting the positions of the "non-tankers".

Look, I know it can be a challenge.  I do.

But I think you'll find, if you pay very, very close attention, that LarBrd33 and I are not the same person.

I second this... I'm a cartoon version of PhoSita... kind of like a parody.  I'm a Wayans Brother's movie spoof of PhoSita's sound logic.

Truthfully, I have no idea what I'm talking about.  It's unfair to lump anyone with me.   

[LarBrd33]

That's just as fatalistic and knee-jerk as the posters who're convinced that tanking is the only way to land a franchise player.

Except there are a lot more stories(a ton more) of this "knee jerk fatalistic viewpoint" coming to pass than that of a team landing their superstar and going on to be a championship team with that superstar.

EDIT: My knee jerk fatalistic scenario has happened twice while I have been a Celtic fan. If that story is too fatalistic perhaps its a good thing I didn't bring out the story where a team drafts a superstar with a #2 pick and he dies before he even signs a contract with the team.

So far, none of the teams that tanked for the 2014 draft have failed at landing a Superstar.

[BballTim]

  For starters, players would probably be more willing to go to/stay in Boston if the team was fairly good as opposed to being bottom feeders.

Eh, I think players care more about the talent on the team and the reputation of the coaching staff / management than how many games the team won the year before.  Guys will want to play for Brad Stevens and with Rondo / Sullinger whether or not the Celtics stumble into the playoffs with 30-35 wins.

If the Celtics get highly touted player in this draft, I think that would attract people here, too.

  I would expect that good players have more of an aversion to being on lottery teams than you imagine.

I would expect that good players have an aversion to being on bad teams.  I've said all along -- the Celtics will still be a bad team if they finish with 35 or so wins. 

Making or missing the playoffs doesn't really have any bearing on that.

  Without any actual evidence I'll stick with my statement. Going to the playoffs is IMO meaningful to the players in the league even if the team isn't all that great.