Be Honest: Celtics make the playoffs - Good or Bad Thing?

[celticsclay]

double post

[celticsclay]

All I want to get across is that IMO the Celts should not make the playoffs. And the BPA if they do not make the playoffs is Myles Turner. Hopefully he will be around 9-12.

Be honest, you related to myles?

[Snakehead]

I am not getting that teams that ended up with picks that were 5th or 7th or 9th or 10th are conclusive proof of a team that tanked. I remember some of those teams. They didn't try to lose on purpose, they just were bad and ended up as the 5th or 9th or 10th worse record that year. There is a difference.

With enough indirect correlations, you can make anything look like a tank job.   

And with enough hindsight like some people are using here.

Like this Wade talk: Wade was not a Duncan level prospect.  He was very promising but I don't think people were saying "this is the best SG of his generation" coming out or anything close.  (EDIT: just quickly looking at all the old draft info on him, there was a huge concern he couldn't shoot and further that he was a tweener and had no position.  Too small to be a SG).

[LooseCannon]

If the Celtics make the playoffs, they're not going to have much competition if a free agent wants to sign with a team that made the playoffs and doesn't have to let go part of its core to sign someone to a max contract.  I'd argue that is a good spot to be in.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I am not getting that teams that ended up with picks that were 5th or 7th or 9th or 10th are conclusive proof of a team that tanked. I remember some of those teams. They didn't try to lose on purpose, they just were bad and ended up as the 5th or 9th or 10th worse record that year. There is a difference.

With enough indirect correlations, you can make anything look like a tank job.   

And with enough hindsight like some people are using here.

Like this Wade talk: Wade was not a Duncan level prospect.  He was very promising but I don't think people were saying "this is the best SG of his generation" coming out or anything close.  (EDIT: just quickly looking at all the old draft info on him, there was a huge concern he couldn't shoot and further that he was a tweener and had no position.  Too small to be a SG).

It's all so vague, so it makes it kind of impossible to argue about.  Technically though, that was a tankworthy draft with people loving all of those top 5 players, the Heat tanked that year and it lead them to 3 championships. 

Ok. So let's go with the Duncan year for a minute. Should we conclude that because the Spurs tanked for Duncan and got him and then won that tanking works? Or should we conclude that the team that had a much better chance of getting him (the Celts) didn't get him and therefore that tanking doesn't work? Also there were other teams in that draft. The ones that got Tony Battie and Keith Van Horn and Anthony Daniels and Tracy McGrady. Tanking didn't work for them.
Do we conclude tanking works because one team got one player, or do we conclude it doesn't because of the experiences of the other 7 teams?

The Heat. They weren't tanking for Wade. They were tanking for Bron like everyone else. It was just as possible for Wade to go to Cleveland to play with Bron as it was for Bron to go to Miami. In the event they got the 2nd pick or the 3rd they were probably going to go with Melo or Darko, or maybe Bosh.

Wade simply doesn't get a ring without Shaq or Bron. He is incidental to a ring, not the cause of one.  He's Scottie Pippen at best. He's not Jordan.

They tanked in a loaded draft --> got a world class talent from tanking ---> other world class players like Shaq, LBJ and Bosh decided to join up with another superstar --> lead to 3 championships.

Tanking is not the end all be all, but it is a great shortcut to put you in position.  It doesn't have a 100% success rate, nobody is saying that, but you can throw in the towel for one year and have a dominant team from it.  It is in fact easier to tank to get a good player than get a good player in free agency.  Trading for good players is more reliable, but you need to essentially semi-tank to get the assets needed to trade for the good player in the first place.

What works better than tanking for winning championships?  Most championships have been won by being a FA destination, tanking or both.  It's hard to look for success stories without one of those two factors being there and we're not an FA destination.  I am a little more optimistic about us getting FAs going forward, but it's hardly a lock.

My point is this: instead of looking at all the teams that have tanked and seeing how many of them have won championships, look at it the other way.  How many teams that have won championships tanked for one of their key players?  The answer is at least half of them.  The Bulls lost 14 of their last 15 games tanking for Olajuwon, but they still liked MJ leading up to it.  Tanking for a top 3 pick in a good draft class is still tanking even if you like the #1 pick the most.

Edit: Also - to be clear - I don't want the Celtics to tank going forward.  I just can't fathom how people don't think it works.

[mmmmm]

It's all so vague, so it makes it kind of impossible to argue about.  Technically though, that was a tankworthy draft with people loving all of those top 5 players, the Heat tanked that year and it lead them to 3 championships. 

And how many championships did tanking for that draft net Cleveland, Toronto & Denver?

Detroit obviously won a championship after picking Darko - but he had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Plus he was a pick acquired in trade, not by tanking.  So let's remove Detroit from the discussion.

Basically, 4 teams tanked hard enough to get top 5 picks in that draft (one of the strongest drafts ever).   And 4 of the top 5 players in that draft now have rings.

But only one of those 4 teams won a championship with real contributions by the player they drafted from that draft.

But as others pointed out - Miami didn't "tank for Wade".  They tanked for Lebron.

Wade's first championship team owes far more of its success to the massive roster overhaul to bring in a surrounding cast of veterans in Shaq, Payton, Walker, etc.   And the next two titles were due to the acquisition of Lebron and Bosh.

The irony is that in-between, Miami tanked again ... but came away with Michael Beasley. 

[tazzmaniac]

It's all so vague, so it makes it kind of impossible to argue about.  Technically though, that was a tankworthy draft with people loving all of those top 5 players, the Heat tanked that year and it lead them to 3 championships. 

And how many championships did tanking for that draft net Cleveland, Toronto & Denver?

Detroit obviously won a championship after picking Darko - but he had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Plus he was a pick acquired in trade, not by tanking.  So let's remove Detroit from the discussion.

Basically, 4 teams tanked hard enough to get top 5 picks in that draft (one of the strongest drafts ever).   And 4 of the top 5 players in that draft now have rings.

But only one of those 4 teams won a championship with real contributions by the player they drafted from that draft.

But as others pointed out - Miami didn't "tank for Wade".  They tanked for Lebron.

Wade's first championship team owes far more of its success to the massive roster overhaul to bring in a surrounding cast of veterans in Shaq, Payton, Walker, etc.   And the next two titles were due to the acquisition of Lebron and Bosh.

The irony is that in-between, Miami tanked again ... but came away with Michael Beasley.

The goal of tanking is to get one of the top picks so you have the chance of drafting a star.  If that happens, the tank was a success.  To define the bar for success to be winning a championship is a ridiculously high standard.  No single draft pick, trade or free agent pickup is going to win a championship.  Cleveland drafting Lebron made them a contender for several years.  If Miami doesn't have Wade, Shaq doesn't go there and neither do Lebron and Bosh. 

[D.o.s.]

I am not getting that teams that ended up with picks that were 5th or 7th or 9th or 10th are conclusive proof of a team that tanked. I remember some of those teams. They didn't try to lose on purpose, they just were bad and ended up as the 5th or 9th or 10th worse record that year. There is a difference.

With enough indirect correlations, you can make anything look like a tank job.   

And with enough hindsight like some people are using here.

Like this Wade talk: Wade was not a Duncan level prospect.  He was very promising but I don't think people were saying "this is the best SG of his generation" coming out or anything close.  (EDIT: just quickly looking at all the old draft info on him, there was a huge concern he couldn't shoot and further that he was a tweener and had no position.  Too small to be a SG).

It could be argued that Riley emptying the team of every contract possible in order to sign James, Wade, and Bosh to max deals is tanking. He was actively making the team worse, or "divesting the franchise of assets" on the chance/guarantee that he'd be able to nab three of the best players in that free agent class.

But, as per usual, this discussion goes in circles, because no one can agree on what tanking is, so people argue about whether or not it works. "it" referring to as many different things as there are posters on the board.

[redrobot]

Obviously tanking has worked - there can be no argument that reasonably disputes this.

The question is how often does it work?

How many teams tank, and of those, will it pay off for?

There are numerous variables that can be debated - strength of draft class, lottery odds, etc. But the overwhelming conclusion has to be that tanking most likely will not work. Most teams that tank will not be lifted from the depths of the lottery to contention by a miracle draft pick. It absolutely can happen - but it probably won't.

So then the debate becomes about the negative effects taking has on a team. What are the consequences of not trying to win as much as possible? Are they worth the risk?

I'm of the opinion that winning games should never be discouraged. Establishing a winning culture now can only lead to good things down the road. If that means a lower draft pick for us, so be it.

[redrobot]

It could be argued that Riley emptying the team of every contract possible in order to sign James, Wade, and Bosh to max deals is tanking. He was actively making the team worse, or "divesting the franchise of assets" on the chance/guarantee that he'd be able to nab three of the best players in that free agent class.

But, as per usual, this discussion goes in circles, because no one can agree on what tanking is, so people argue about whether or not it works. "it" referring to as many different things as there are posters on the board.

I don't think you can say clearing cap space and tanking are the same thing. Tanking is specifically about losing games on purpose in order to reap the benefits that are awarded the teams with the worst records.

Miami clearing cap space wasn't about losing games, it was about making room to sign expensive dudes. It's a good strategy for a team based in a city that can boast tropical weather, active nightlife and no state income tax. Sadly for Boston, only one of those can be claimed - and that one, not very convincingly.

[D.o.s.]

It could be argued that Riley emptying the team of every contract possible in order to sign James, Wade, and Bosh to max deals is tanking. He was actively making the team worse, or "divesting the franchise of assets" on the chance/guarantee that he'd be able to nab three of the best players in that free agent class.

But, as per usual, this discussion goes in circles, because no one can agree on what tanking is, so people argue about whether or not it works. "it" referring to as many different things as there are posters on the board.

I don't think you can say clearing cap space and tanking are the same thing. Tanking is specifically about losing games on purpose in order to reap the benefits that are awarded the teams with the worst records.

Miami clearing cap space wasn't about losing games, it was about making room to sign expensive dudes. It's a good strategy for a team based in a city that can boast tropical weather, active nightlife and no state income tax. Sadly for Boston, only one of those can be claimed - and that one, not very convincingly.

But, as per usual, this discussion goes in circles, because no one can agree on what tanking is, so people argue about whether or not it works. "it" referring to as many different things as there are posters on the board.

Your definition of tanking applies only to the draft, then?

[Moranis]

It could be argued that Riley emptying the team of every contract possible in order to sign James, Wade, and Bosh to max deals is tanking. He was actively making the team worse, or "divesting the franchise of assets" on the chance/guarantee that he'd be able to nab three of the best players in that free agent class.

But, as per usual, this discussion goes in circles, because no one can agree on what tanking is, so people argue about whether or not it works. "it" referring to as many different things as there are posters on the board.

I don't think you can say clearing cap space and tanking are the same thing. Tanking is specifically about losing games on purpose in order to reap the benefits that are awarded the teams with the worst records.

Miami clearing cap space wasn't about losing games, it was about making room to sign expensive dudes. It's a good strategy for a team based in a city that can boast tropical weather, active nightlife and no state income tax. Sadly for Boston, only one of those can be claimed - and that one, not very convincingly.

But Miami started clearing assets during the season prior to the James free agency.  Heck they even acquired a first rounder in one of those trades (that became Jonas Valanciunas) which they used in the Bosh sign and trade.  And lets not really kid ourselves the dumping of salary was a bit overblown.  They got rid of Dequan Cook and Michael Beasley at the draft or during free agency.  Not exactly a huge loss on either side. 

Frankly, Miami should have just said F-U to Cleveland and Toronto and kept all the picks.  I know they did it so the guys could get bigger raises and the extra year, but at some point all of those assets would have been nicer (imagine if the Heat had Jonas in the middle last year next to Bosh). 

[Moranis]

For all their tanking look at the Sixers. They couldn't beat Oak Hill Academy. Ok. They could. But if they were told the game counted in the standings they couldn't.

For all their tanking they have Joel Embid and Noel. Whoop de doo.

We have Sully, Marcus Smart, and James Young.

When you look at who they will supposedly pick next year nbadraft.net has them taking Jahil Okafor and Trey Lyles in the first round and we're taking Willy C Stein and Tyus Jones.

Is that their big plan? That's how they're going to get so great?

They're going to have Okafor, Noel, Embid, and T Lyles and we're going to have Sully, WCS, Smart, Young, and Tyus Jones and that's their plan for getting so much better than the rest of the league?

The foundation of their team is losing. They've made it to the Timberwolves zone. Kindred spirits with the 90s Clippers

You wouldn't trade our assets for theirs at this very moment?
They have Saric, the Lakers pick, their own 2015 pick, Noel and Embid.
They have far superior assets to ours.
What do we have that is even as good as Noel at this point? He's more valuable than Marcus Smart that's for sure.

The fact is that without Brad Stevens as a genius coach, we really don't have much other than Smart and Sullinger and some Brooklyn picks.

It's fine to criticize the 76ers, but to act like we are automatically better because we haven't gutted our roster is naive, and we may look like the foolish ones when we have this conversation in 2-3 years time if they present as the Wizards are now with John Wall and Beal shooting them up to a real threat in the East. What exactly are we hoping for at the moment? To be a better version of Atlanta and cross our fingers we can attract a free agent as good as their #3 draft pick Mr Al Horford.
Let's not forget that it's doubtful the East stays this bad for much longer. Miami will be back next year with Bosh and Dragic as Whiteside improves, New York has cap room, a top 3 pick and a top 20 player in his prime who's had a season of rest.
Cleveland has Lebron, Kyrie and Love and the Bucks have Giannis, Jabari Parker and a top 4 record in the East. Then there's the Bulls and Wizards.

Don't get me wrong Eja you get nothing but respect from me but I just want to make it clear that a lot of us aren't so optimistic about our chances at a title sooner than the 76ers- or at least a real shot at creating a championship team.
Smart and Stevens are great starting pieces, but other then them it's not all green happiness.

I would take Smart over Noel every day of the year. Embiid doesn't scare me at all and Euros that aren't here don't scare me either.

But no matter what assets they have they are teaching theirs to lose. We are teaching ours to win. It's not the assets. It's what you do with them.

Just like Oklahoma City was teaching Durant, Westbrook, and Harden to lose.  Yeah.  It has been shown time and time again that winning players will eventually win and losing players will eventually lose no matter how they start.  Losing doesn't create bad habits, just like winning doesn't create good habits.  It is all about the player.

How many rings did OKC get?

So you base everything on rings huh?  How many rings did Orlando get when they signed Hill and McGrady?  How many rings did New York get when they traded for Anthony or L.A. for Howard?  I guess both those strategies are failures as well. 

Oklahoma City has played in the NBA Finals and has been a relevant and legitimate title contender for the last 5 years or so (and would be this year if Durant wasn't injured).  That is a successful team and they were clearly tanking to get there.  At one point on here I actually went through their moves leading up to and for the first couple of years after the Durant draft.  Virtually every move they made was based on acquiring assets and losing more games for draft position.  It was every bit as blatant as Philadelphia except that OKC's players weren't hurt and thus could give a better appearance of trying.  But look at Seattle/OKC during that time.  They traded away veteran after veteran to acquire draft picks and assets.  That is all they were doing.

[Eja117]

For all their tanking look at the Sixers. They couldn't beat Oak Hill Academy. Ok. They could. But if they were told the game counted in the standings they couldn't.

For all their tanking they have Joel Embid and Noel. Whoop de doo.

We have Sully, Marcus Smart, and James Young.

When you look at who they will supposedly pick next year nbadraft.net has them taking Jahil Okafor and Trey Lyles in the first round and we're taking Willy C Stein and Tyus Jones.

Is that their big plan? That's how they're going to get so great?

They're going to have Okafor, Noel, Embid, and T Lyles and we're going to have Sully, WCS, Smart, Young, and Tyus Jones and that's their plan for getting so much better than the rest of the league?

The foundation of their team is losing. They've made it to the Timberwolves zone. Kindred spirits with the 90s Clippers

You wouldn't trade our assets for theirs at this very moment?
They have Saric, the Lakers pick, their own 2015 pick, Noel and Embid.
They have far superior assets to ours.
What do we have that is even as good as Noel at this point? He's more valuable than Marcus Smart that's for sure.

The fact is that without Brad Stevens as a genius coach, we really don't have much other than Smart and Sullinger and some Brooklyn picks.

It's fine to criticize the 76ers, but to act like we are automatically better because we haven't gutted our roster is naive, and we may look like the foolish ones when we have this conversation in 2-3 years time if they present as the Wizards are now with John Wall and Beal shooting them up to a real threat in the East. What exactly are we hoping for at the moment? To be a better version of Atlanta and cross our fingers we can attract a free agent as good as their #3 draft pick Mr Al Horford.
Let's not forget that it's doubtful the East stays this bad for much longer. Miami will be back next year with Bosh and Dragic as Whiteside improves, New York has cap room, a top 3 pick and a top 20 player in his prime who's had a season of rest.
Cleveland has Lebron, Kyrie and Love and the Bucks have Giannis, Jabari Parker and a top 4 record in the East. Then there's the Bulls and Wizards.

Don't get me wrong Eja you get nothing but respect from me but I just want to make it clear that a lot of us aren't so optimistic about our chances at a title sooner than the 76ers- or at least a real shot at creating a championship team.
Smart and Stevens are great starting pieces, but other then them it's not all green happiness.

I would take Smart over Noel every day of the year. Embiid doesn't scare me at all and Euros that aren't here don't scare me either.

But no matter what assets they have they are teaching theirs to lose. We are teaching ours to win. It's not the assets. It's what you do with them.

Just like Oklahoma City was teaching Durant, Westbrook, and Harden to lose.  Yeah.  It has been shown time and time again that winning players will eventually win and losing players will eventually lose no matter how they start.  Losing doesn't create bad habits, just like winning doesn't create good habits.  It is all about the player.

How many rings did OKC get?

So you base everything on rings huh?  How many rings did Orlando get when they signed Hill and McGrady?  How many rings did New York get when they traded for Anthony or L.A. for Howard?  I guess both those strategies are failures as well. 

Oklahoma City has played in the NBA Finals and has been a relevant and legitimate title contender for the last 5 years or so (and would be this year if Durant wasn't injured).  That is a successful team and they were clearly tanking to get there.  At one point on here I actually went through their moves leading up to and for the first couple of years after the Durant draft.  Virtually every move they made was based on acquiring assets and losing more games for draft position.  It was every bit as blatant as Philadelphia except that OKC's players weren't hurt and thus could give a better appearance of trying.  But look at Seattle/OKC during that time.  They traded away veteran after veteran to acquire draft picks and assets.  That is all they were doing.

of course I base everything on rings. I'm from New England. We don't put up banners that say "Was good".  You got to at least win a division around here.

[Evantime34]

The recent losses make me think that it might not be a bad idea for them to go to the lottery. I think at this point they have shown flashes of what this team can be. It might be better to add the 10 pick than get crushed in the first round of the playoffs.

However, I love watching the C's when they have been at their best and if I get to watch them playing so hard and winning so be it.