Would you really tank?

[thirstyboots18]

I don't care how the NBA is set up...I would never wish for a Celtics loss in any game, ever.

 

[D.o.s.]

I don't care how the NBA is set up...I would never wish for a Celtics loss in any game, ever.

 

that's my feeling, too. I kind of assume the C's are just going to go 82-0 every year.

[LooseCannon]

I don't care how the NBA is set up...I would never wish for a Celtics loss in any game, ever.

 

that's my feeling, too. I kind of assume the C's are just going to go 82-0 every year.

Let's not get carried away.  The best you can hope for is 80-2 because the refs are going to screw the Celtics out of at least a couple of wins.

[D.o.s.]

I save those for the playoffs.

[ScoobyDoo]

I'm not for tanking, but I am all for strategic development when a season is all but lost.

Strategic development definition now follows:

1. If guys like Bass, Humphries, Bayless, Bogans, Wallace and Joel Anthony are not sure fire parts of our future - why would I play them now.

2. Bradley, Rondo? We know what Bradley can do and there is no need to increase the chances of Rondo getting hurt with 20 games left in a lost season. We don't have to shut Rondo down, but we don't need to play him 38 minutes a night.

3. I'd be taking long, hard looks at Sully, Olynyk, Green, Babb, Johnson & Pressey.

4. I want to know if / see:

A) Babb & Johnson could "really" be my 2nd and 3rd string off guards, on the cheap, moving forward for the long term.

B) If Phil Pressey can "really" be my 3rd string PG moving forward for the long term.   
 
C) Get all these youngs guys as much playign time as possible for the next 20 games and as they head into summer league.

I start Olynyk, Sullinger, Green, Babb and Pressey and play them all roughly 35 minutes a night with back up as needed from Johnson, Rondo, Hump, Bass & Bayless - all of whom the league already knows what their value is for any trade - we don't need to "showcase" these vets any longer.

Strategic Development: Focus this time on developing our future core players, not grinding out pointless wins with vets who will  most likely not be here next year.

The added bonus is that it will also most likely land us in the top 3-4 worst records instead of what could easily end up as the 7th of 8th pick, or worse if we slide.

I think we are foolish to paly ourselves into the 6th to 10th pick rather then the 3rd to 5th pick - absolutely nuts.

ButI truly don't consider this tanking - it's developing guys who will be here, rather than eking out pointless wins with vets who won't be - the latter is completely asinine to me.

[GreenWarrior]

i'm not a fan of tanking but the nba is set up this way. in order to be great you have to be really bad or...be in LA, Miami, texas, or Arizona.

That's just not really true, based on historical trends though.

You have to be really bad in order to get a lot of lottery balls.   That's it.

That has no real correlation with subsequently becoming great.

historical trends? lets look at LA and San Antonio in the last 10 yrs plus. their success was started with being in the right place at the right time - which was being bad.

it takes key free agent acquisition, trades & good drafting obviously. but you have to be lucky to be able to draft a tim Duncan and kobe(I know they traded for kobe but same difference). and none of their success happens if they don't get those players.

I guess It comes down to preference and how someone wants to see a team built though.

[GreenWarrior]

like I said i'm not a fan of tanking either. I don't get upset about them winning this yr. hell, before the season I thought we would make the playoffs.

I do feel if we are drafting in between the 10 - 20 spots for the next few yrs. this will be a long process before we're serious contenders again.

[mmmmm]

i'm not a fan of tanking but the nba is set up this way. in order to be great you have to be really bad or...be in LA, Miami, texas, or Arizona.

That's just not really true, based on historical trends though.

You have to be really bad in order to get a lot of lottery balls.   That's it.

That has no real correlation with subsequently becoming great.

historical trends? lets look at LA and San Antonio in the last 10 yrs plus. their success was started with being in the right place at the right time - which was being bad.

it takes key free agent acquisition, trades & good drafting obviously. but you have to be lucky to be able to draft a tim Duncan and kobe(I know they traded for kobe but same difference). and none of their success happens if they don't get those players.

I guess It comes down to preference and how someone wants to see a team built though.

The Spurs were the only one of your two examples that benefited from being 'really bad'.  And in some way they were more 'weirdly unlucky / lucky' than 'bad'.   They were a powerful roster that had won 55+ games for 3 straight seasons when Robinson got hurt.  That put them in the lottery.  Then they got lucky to jump over two teams to get the #1 pick.  So they were adding Duncan to a roster that was otherwise extremely strong already.

LA was not bad to get Kobe or Shaq.  They won 53 games in 1996.  They traded Divac to Charlotte to get their #13 pick (that trade was made in advance of the draft and without Charlotte knowing who LA would pick).  They then picked Kobe with that pick.  They then signed Shaq as a free agent.

You are correct that these teams are not good if they don't get those players.  I don't disagree at all with the idea that you need great players to be a great team.

But you don't have to 'be really bad' in order to get great players.   Neither the Pacers nor the Rockets this year have been 'really bad' in recent years.

Many, many teams have been 'really bad' and never become very good.   Mostly because the vast majority of top draft talent tends to move on from the teams that drafted them at least once or twice before they end up on a contending team.  As you say, it takes a lot more than just drafting to build a contending team.

And the fact that only a tiny handful of teams have won the title as a direct consequence of drafting in the top 5 indicates that where you draft is probably well below other factors in importance.

[Celtics18]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

[#1P4P]

Yes, you should tank... especially if you can do it the way DA is. Throughout NBA history, it's been established that you need a top 10 player (or multiple top 50 and a top 5 coach) to be a legitimate contender.

If the idea is to win a Championship in the near future, a top 10 draft pick is a necessary step in the process unless you can poach a Superstar or 2 off of other teams. We can look at 8 teams that have a legitimate shot at winning this year and they all have at least one key component on there team that is almost certainly homegrown. Houston might be the only team that has title aspirations without drafting their best players themselves (Howard and Harden being #1 and #3 picks in the respective drafts, and very good fortune getting Parsons in the 2nd round).

After seasons upon seasons of trial and error, Ainge has found an excellent way on how to do it. There are few bad habits settling in or being encouraged for the players on the roster.

Danny is being overly patient with the rehabilitation process and conservative in the injury recovery time of his players and he traded key rotation players in Crawford and Lee for no immediate pieces during the middle of the season. Those are signs of tanking. However, he hasn't allowed the trades, trade rumors, and losing sully the locker room. The players come out and play hard every night and if they lose, it's not because of a lack of effort.

This tanking process bodes well for the Celtics because they already have a star caliber player on the roster. if you can tank with a top 30 player on the roster (usually due to injury), the turnaround can be very quick.

[D.o.s.]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Source?

I'd really like to see the data you used to pull this from, since I can't find a good sortable draft listing that allows this level of detail, myself.

[ScoobyDoo]

Getting the highest possible draft position in this one draft should be a priority.

After this draft, we can pay all the homage we want to Celtic Pride and the merits of playoff experience for the young guys.

Play the young guys, sit the vets - get the best possible pick this year.

Picking in the 1-4 range versus the 6-10 range means the difference between guys like:

Ebiid, Parker, Wiggins, Exum or Randle

and

Aaron Gordon, Marcus Smart, Vonleh & Gary Harris.

Vonleh might end up having a better career than Embiid - but I'd like to have the choice to make the pick I'd like.

After we secure one more blue chip prospect, we go full steam ahead making moves for difference making veterans via trade or free agency and we continue to fall back on our plethora of draft picks in the meantime.

Another reason to get the best possible pick this draft is that it would give you a much better "chance" at landing a game changing vet this off season...

[Tr1boy]

Danny can help the tank by shutting down rondo at any pt now. He should at least sit out april

[Celtics18]

Between 1991 and 2010 there have been 100 players drafted in the top five in the NBA draft.  Of those 100 players, only Tim Duncan, Dwayne Wade, and Darko Milicic have won a title with the teams that drafted them.

If the goal is to re-build a champion, I don't know why everyone is so fired up about a strategy that has yielded a 2.0001% success rate over the course of the last twenty years as the only way to get it done.

Source?


I'd really like to see the data you used to pull this from, since I can't find a good sortable draft listing that allows this level of detail, myself.

BasketballBall Reference Draft page.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/

[LooseCannon]

A) Babb & Johnson could "really" be my 2nd and 3rd string off guards, on the cheap, moving forward for the long term.

B) If Phil Pressey can "really" be my 3rd string PG moving forward for the long term.   

Anyone who you are projecting as a possible third-string guard is not a long-term piece.  Right now, they look like easily-replaceable talent whose biggest value may come from having their unguaranteed contracts used as trade ballast.

Humphries and Bass at least have the ability to be starter-caliber players.