Need to tank hard to ensure Simmons comes to Boston.

[Ed Hollison]

I hadn't read the phrase "Marcus Banks 2.0" in a while and was getting antsy, thanks.

[BDeCosta26]

The odds of getting a superstar through trade or free agency is, in my estimation, just as unlikely as doing so through the draft, especially if you aren't a glamorous location or in a tax-free state. At least through the draft you have the player for a longer period of time and see him develop throughout the years.

If the Sixers wanted a competitive team they could easily have one tomorrow. They have the assets to flip the switch because it's really, really easy to go from a bad team to a mediocre one. The hard part is going from a mediocre/above average team to a very good/contender level team, because that requires superstars and there's just not enough of them for all 30 teams.

Okafor, Saric, Noel, Covington, their draft picks, and even Embiid could all fetch veteran talent easily. If they wanted to field a starting lineup of Ty Lawson, OJ Mayo, Gallinari, Taj Gibson/Markief Morris, and Roy Hibbert they could do so tomorrow.

Young players with potential and superstars are the most valuable commodities in the NBA. Why? Because they're both underpaid. Everybody else is grossly overpaid by comparison and due to the salary cap the more underpaid guys you have, the more talent you can actually squeeze onto your team.

Put it this way:  The Cavs are paying LeBron James 23 million dollars this year. The Sixers could easily sign two OK players 11.5 million a year, say an OK starting center and shooting guard. However, the production they are getting from those two players for the same money is nowhere near the impact LeBron, or any other superstar for that matter is providing. The problem is those stars are not available to the Sixers. So instead of paying average/above average players that money they're trying to get that superstar through the draft. Is that so hard to fathom?

Like Zach Lowe says frequently, tanking is no guarantee, it's just the best option out of a lot of unlikely options.

They're all unlikely options, naturally. Though, trading for stars happens more than people like to believe. In the past ten years, a whole list of "stars" have been traded (Kevin Love, Carmelo Anthony, Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, James Harden, KG, Ray Allen, etc) But the best part of our rebuild so far is that Ainge has us perfectly set-up to pursue all avenues in chase of that superstar.

The Sixers are the perfect counter-argument to tanking. Sure they could trade their pieces and make a competitive team, but why tank for 3 years in a row just to get a 40 win team out of it? It's of course possible to get a franchise changing star in the draft (LeBron, Davis, Durant) but it's unlikely all the same, and if you go to the lengths the Sixers have to get one that way, your create a culture of losing no one wants to be a part of. Are any "top-tier" FA's going to consider Philly? Not a chance. Will Cousins, for example, sign off on a trade to Philly? No way. Full tanking kind of forces you to play one hand, and Ainge has done a masterful job keeping us out of that mess.

Were one of the youngest teams in the NBA, with a roster full of high-effort young guys with potential, and were good enough right now to make at least a respectable playoff run, which keeps the door of FA wide open. Guys will consider coming here thanks to Stevens, the great FO and the roster we currently have.

Better yet, thanks to the Brooklyn trade, we have a 45-50 win caliber playoff team full of guys 28 and under while STILL being able to get a top 5 pick. On top of having 2 more picks (likely at least in the lottery, if not top-10) coming from them the next two years. It's difficult to tank hard enough to get a top-5 pick. You have to make yourself pretty bad, which would be kind of difficult with our currently deep roster. But why would we? Brooklyn is literally tanking for us. We have a legit shot at the #1 pick this year and we didn't even have to suck to do it. It's an extremely enviable position to be in, and gives a great hand to play at the draft table while, unlike Philly, we still remain credibility in the eyes of the players.

Because of the picks and the roster, we have a plethora of trade chips to play with, and that pile of assets looks better and better as we get closer to the conveyance of the Brooklyn picks. Just about every player thrown in the rumor mill this year is going to get connected with us because guys around the league know we have both the assets to make some of the best offers and a team guys will want to play on. Just last year, we thought we were light years away from contention, but now that doesn't seem to be the case. If you put a star like Paul George on this team and you've got a team that could likely challenge the Cavs.

Were about as well set up as you could possibly ask for since we started this rebuild. We have great hands to play at the draft, in FA, and on the trade market, plus a young team on the rise and an already established culture of hard work and defense. Tanking would destroy all of that, put all our eggs in the draft basket, likely alienate/lose Stevens (who's one of our greatest assets, IMO) and for what? A 20% chance at Ben Simmons instead of a 14% chance? No thank you. We need to just stay patient. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team better set up, on the whole (including culture, coaching, management, ownership, cap space, current roster, draft assets, etc.) to succeed better than we are right now.

 

[arctic 3.0]

Some posters are stuck in the NBA2K GM Season mode of selling of assets for draft picks and playing those draft picks into superstars. Real life doesn't work that way, teams like Sactown,  Minny, Philly and even Boston in the past have tanked hard only to lose in the lottery or draft players that didn't amount to much.

Tanking is a serious risk that can induce a losing attitude amongst your players, cause frustration and locker room problems, teaches the young players you draft that losing is more important than winning, can cause good coaches to leave a team or get tuned out by a team, and on top of all that, could lead to nothing more than needing to tank year after year after year if you don't keep tanking.

It will alienate the fan base, lose revenue for your team and others around the league and ultimately will get GMs fired.

Don't understand the need to tank when the Brooklyn picks could conceivably net us 3 straight years of top 5 picks.

Is that where this insanity comes from?
The lack logic and forsight in these threads makes my head hurt.

The tank is over people.
Ainge pulled off a 1.5 year tank which netted us a team full of young talent that is likely to make the playoffs WHILE OTHER TEAMS  tank for us.

Enough already!

[manl_lui]

I don't really understand the tanker mentality. So when you're a "tanker" fan, do you even watch the games?
I mean you're rooting for the team to loose anyway, so why watch?

I have a friend, he's a tanker guy, he seldom watches the games, he wants to be awaken when the team has a star so he can run out and buy the guy's jersey, and get into watching again. I don't get it.

TP. I've almost enjoyed these rebuilding years as much as 09-12. No heartbreak is good.

this is the best comment ever! Do tankers even watch games? and if you're rooting for the team to lose, are you a fan?

[TheTruthFot18]

Even with the Sixers best(worst) record, they still only have a 25% chance of getting him. We see how the worst team fared last year in terms of landing a #1 pick.

We're not getting Simmons unless the gods decide it's really our time. So I'll be fine with any of Brown, Ingram, Skal, Rabb, Poeltl.

I also think the later half of the first round and early second round has a couple of RJH level players we can snag. I can't imagine DA keeps the 7 total picks we owed though.

[manl_lui]

Even with the Sixers best(worst) record, they still only have a 25% chance of getting him. We see how the worst team fared last year in terms of landing a #1 pick.

We're not getting Simmons unless the gods decide it's really our time. So I'll be fine with any of Brown, Ingram, Skal, Rabb, Poeltl.

I also think the later half of the first round and early second round has a couple of RJH level players we can snag. I can't imagine DA keeps the 7 total picks we owed though.

also agreed, I mean sometimes I'm an optimist...Damian Lillard dropped to 6 to the Trailblazers, and George was at 10, hell even Drummond whom I REALLY wanted was drafted at 9.

We just need Danny to draft REALLY REALLY REALLY well with the Nets pick whom I think should be a top 5 at least. Sometimes I wish we had the scouting team from the Spurs...besides Duncan, most of the people they drafted or traded for turned out to be very good players

[mef730]

Indeed. Let's strip our team to the studs for, if we're lucky, the 4th best shot at Simmons.  That would mean a 11.9% chance at winning the lottery. 

Come on, Danny. There's only an 88.1% chance at failure. Blow it up!

It's even worse than that. Let's assume that we trade Smart, Isaiah and a Brooklyn pick or two to get Philly's first pick (I'm assuming that it would take at least one pick, since there is no combination of players that Philly would take to give up a potential Ben Simmons.). We tank and Brooklyn continues its losing ways. LAL somehow start to win games. Philly finishes worst, Brooklyn next and then us, so we have the picks of the worst three teams. There is still a greater than 1/3 chance that we don't get that first pick.

Then there's the Justise Winslow argument: If I could go back in time and alter the past so that we would lose two games, missed the playoffs and gotten that 9th pick, I probably would. It's really easy to do a lot of things in hindsight. But how often does that situation occur?

And you know what's no fun? Going to a game and cheering for the Celtics, while secretly rooting for them to lose. I tried that two years ago. Forget it, not worth it.

Mike

[Granath]

I can't imagine DA keeps the 7 total picks we owed though.

I think it's eight.

1sts:
1. Brooklyn
2. Celtics
3. Dallas

2nds
4. Philly
5. Minny (assuming they don't make the playoffs in which case this is a first)
6. Cleveland
7. Dallas/Memphis (whichever is better)
8. Miami

Note that Boston's 2nd and Toronto's second are owed to Memphis and Utah.

As for the OP's post...I'm sure he'll be posting the same thing the year the Celtics win the NBA Championship.

"Just think how good we'd be next year if we tanked instead of winning 60 games and then we can get Joe Dirt in the draft!!!"

[nickagneta]

I don't want to tank--ala, 6er's!  But would giving "significant minutes" to Rozier, RJ, Mickey, and Young, while fazing out Amir, DLee, and ET(maybe a couple others), be considered "tanking"?  I don't think so.  By all means, while using those youngsters, try your hardest to win and make the playoffs!  Don't TRY to lose.
Was noting that the Bulls were kind of forced to use BPortis the other day, cause of quad OT, and he came thru with great game(20 and 11).  First real minutes of the season!  Is that what Mickey could possibly deliver?  We'll never know at this rate.  We'll never know about any of our young players until they get a "real" chance.  It's NOT tanking!
We already know that we're not beating the Cavs, GSWs or Spurs four outta seven--c'mon admit it!  We usually play these teams tough, and sometimes get real close to getting "a win", but we're not winning a playoff series!  So let's try to improve by developing our youth.

You can justify to yourself all you want that sitting better players for the sake of giving rookies and 2nd year players playing time that don't deserve it by calling it player development, but that's tanking. The coaching staff and front office see these guys in practice everyday. Stevens and Ainge know which players are ready for NBA minutes and which aren't. The Celtics management staff is in the business of winning games and playing inferior players extended minutes to develop them in a game rather than in practice is just another way to tank and lose. So I wouldn't be expecting Stevens to suddenly be giving Young, Rozier, Mickey and Hunter playing any huge minutes anytime soon

[spikelovetheCelts]

Indeed. Let's strip our team to the studs for, if we're lucky, the 4th best shot at Simmons.  That would mean a 11.9% chance at winning the lottery. 

Come on, Danny. There's only an 88.1% chance at failure. Blow it up!

It's even worse than that. Let's assume that we trade Smart, Isaiah and a Brooklyn pick or two to get Philly's first pick (I'm assuming that it would take at least one pick, since there is no combination of players that Philly would take to give up a potential Ben Simmons.). We tank and Brooklyn continues its losing ways. LAL somehow start to win games. Philly finishes worst, Brooklyn next and then us, so we have the picks of the worst three teams. There is still a greater than 1/3 chance that we don't get that first pick.

Then there's the Justise Winslow argument: If I could go back in time and alter the past so that we would lose two games, missed the playoffs and gotten that 9th pick, I probably would. It's really easy to do a lot of things in hindsight. But how often does that situation occur?

And you know what's no fun? Going to a game and cheering for the Celtics, while secretly rooting for them to lose. I tried that two years ago. Forget it, not worth it.

Mike

Mike I don't like to root for a team to lose either. I think we should let our team play this year. Brooklyn's pick will be good. Ingram is not a bad # 2 pick. Simmons is a beast but to waste this season for him. I think Experience is important to winning too. I think Danny is going to get Cousins in the summer before the Draft after Rondo signs elsewhere.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't want to tank--ala, 6er's!  But would giving "significant minutes" to Rozier, RJ, Mickey, and Young, while fazing out Amir, DLee, and ET(maybe a couple others), be considered "tanking"?  I don't think so.  By all means, while using those youngsters, try your hardest to win and make the playoffs!  Don't TRY to lose.
Was noting that the Bulls were kind of forced to use BPortis the other day, cause of quad OT, and he came thru with great game(20 and 11).  First real minutes of the season!  Is that what Mickey could possibly deliver?  We'll never know at this rate.  We'll never know about any of our young players until they get a "real" chance.  It's NOT tanking!
We already know that we're not beating the Cavs, GSWs or Spurs four outta seven--c'mon admit it!  We usually play these teams tough, and sometimes get real close to getting "a win", but we're not winning a playoff series!  So let's try to improve by developing our youth.

You can justify to yourself all you want that sitting better players for the sake of giving rookies and 2nd year players playing time that don't deserve it by calling it player development, but that's tanking. The coaching staff and front office see these guys in practice everyday. Stevens and Ainge know which players are ready for NBA minutes and which aren't. The Celtics management staff is in the business of winning games and playing inferior players extended minutes to develop them in a game rather than in practice is just another way to tank and lose. So I wouldn't be expecting Stevens to suddenly be giving Young, Rozier, Mickey and Hunter playing any huge minutes anytime soon

Agree with your premise, but I disagree with a little element of your argument which has been in place since forever, Doc et al.

That a coach doesn't play certain players isn't evidence that a player may not be ready or less deserving of a playing time than a player who's actually getting it particularly when vets. vs. rookies are concerned.

There's a pecking order and for the most part coaches follow it, giving more allowance to veterans even when they seemingly don't deserve it, in part because of track record rather than current performance. Their egos are also harder to manage when they don't get playing time, while rookies can be easily rationalized away without bringing negativity into it.

Stevens does a much better job in the context of finding playing time to his young players even when they seemingly aren't fully ready to take that step. Doc really never took those measures unless forced by injuries, and at times not even then.

Regardless there are always players on the bench, not part of the active roster around the league who are more than capable of out-playing those in front of them, they simply aren't getting the opportunity for one reason or another.

All to say, I think it's a mistake falling to the argument of "well coach sees them in practice, so if they don't play they must not be passing mustard".

But I agree with the rest, just hate how you always fall back to that idea of yours which I've always found lacking.

This not to say either that we should suddenly start playing all our young players, etc., etc... but I don't think slighting their ability to play based purely on Stevens not getting them on the court (particularly in positions where we have an abundance of depth) is a good argument to make.

[nickagneta]

I don't want to tank--ala, 6er's!  But would giving "significant minutes" to Rozier, RJ, Mickey, and Young, while fazing out Amir, DLee, and ET(maybe a couple others), be considered "tanking"?  I don't think so.  By all means, while using those youngsters, try your hardest to win and make the playoffs!  Don't TRY to lose.
Was noting that the Bulls were kind of forced to use BPortis the other day, cause of quad OT, and he came thru with great game(20 and 11).  First real minutes of the season!  Is that what Mickey could possibly deliver?  We'll never know at this rate.  We'll never know about any of our young players until they get a "real" chance.  It's NOT tanking!
We already know that we're not beating the Cavs, GSWs or Spurs four outta seven--c'mon admit it!  We usually play these teams tough, and sometimes get real close to getting "a win", but we're not winning a playoff series!  So let's try to improve by developing our youth.

You can justify to yourself all you want that sitting better players for the sake of giving rookies and 2nd year players playing time that don't deserve it by calling it player development, but that's tanking. The coaching staff and front office see these guys in practice everyday. Stevens and Ainge know which players are ready for NBA minutes and which aren't. The Celtics management staff is in the business of winning games and playing inferior players extended minutes to develop them in a game rather than in practice is just another way to tank and lose. So I wouldn't be expecting Stevens to suddenly be giving Young, Rozier, Mickey and Hunter playing any huge minutes anytime soon

Agree with your premise, but I disagree with a little element of your argument which has been in place since forever, Doc et al.

That a coach doesn't play certain players isn't evidence that a player may not be ready or more less deserving of a playing time than a player who's actually getting it particularly when vets. vs. rookies are concerned.

There's a pecking order and for the most part coaches follow it, giving more allowance to veterans even when they seemingly don't deserve it, in part because of track record rather than current performance. Their egos are also harder to manage when they don't get playing time, while rookies can be easily rationalized away without bringing negativity into it.

Stevens does a much better job in the context of finding playing time to his young players even when they seemingly aren't fully ready to take that step. Doc really never took those measures unless forced by injuries, and at times not even then.

Regardless there are always players on the bench, not part of the active roster around the league who are more than capable of out-playing those in front of them, they simply aren't getting the opportunity for one reason or another.

All to say, I think it's a mistake falling to the argument of "well coach sees them in practice, so if they don't play they must not be passing mustard".

But I agree with the rest, just hate how you always fall back to that idea of yours which I've always found lacking.

This not to say either that we should suddenly start playing all our young players, etc., etc... but I don't think slighting their ability to play based purely on Stevens not getting them on the court (particularly in positions where we have an abundance of depth) is a good argument to make.

Its my stance because I have yet to see it disproved. All the young players Doc didn't play that went on to play huge minutes and be good elsewhere, where are they? Who are they? Bill Walker? JR Giddens? Who are these young players he didn't play that were so good?

I also don't see how anyone can look at D League video and come up with the idea that playing well there somehow translates to needing to get NBA minutes. Stevens sees Mickey, Young, Rozier, an Hunter in practice. He sees when they miss rotations consistently, when they make the wrong decision offensively consistently, when they aren't getting their position consistently, when they just aren't hitting their shots, when they just look lost. We don't see that.

So I think assuming these players are better than ones in front of them when we as fans have no idea whether that is true or not, is just off.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I don't want to tank--ala, 6er's!  But would giving "significant minutes" to Rozier, RJ, Mickey, and Young, while fazing out Amir, DLee, and ET(maybe a couple others), be considered "tanking"?  I don't think so.  By all means, while using those youngsters, try your hardest to win and make the playoffs!  Don't TRY to lose.
Was noting that the Bulls were kind of forced to use BPortis the other day, cause of quad OT, and he came thru with great game(20 and 11).  First real minutes of the season!  Is that what Mickey could possibly deliver?  We'll never know at this rate.  We'll never know about any of our young players until they get a "real" chance.  It's NOT tanking!
We already know that we're not beating the Cavs, GSWs or Spurs four outta seven--c'mon admit it!  We usually play these teams tough, and sometimes get real close to getting "a win", but we're not winning a playoff series!  So let's try to improve by developing our youth.

You can justify to yourself all you want that sitting better players for the sake of giving rookies and 2nd year players playing time that don't deserve it by calling it player development, but that's tanking. The coaching staff and front office see these guys in practice everyday. Stevens and Ainge know which players are ready for NBA minutes and which aren't. The Celtics management staff is in the business of winning games and playing inferior players extended minutes to develop them in a game rather than in practice is just another way to tank and lose. So I wouldn't be expecting Stevens to suddenly be giving Young, Rozier, Mickey and Hunter playing any huge minutes anytime soon

Agree with your premise, but I disagree with a little element of your argument which has been in place since forever, Doc et al.

That a coach doesn't play certain players isn't evidence that a player may not be ready or more less deserving of a playing time than a player who's actually getting it particularly when vets. vs. rookies are concerned.

There's a pecking order and for the most part coaches follow it, giving more allowance to veterans even when they seemingly don't deserve it, in part because of track record rather than current performance. Their egos are also harder to manage when they don't get playing time, while rookies can be easily rationalized away without bringing negativity into it.

Stevens does a much better job in the context of finding playing time to his young players even when they seemingly aren't fully ready to take that step. Doc really never took those measures unless forced by injuries, and at times not even then.

Regardless there are always players on the bench, not part of the active roster around the league who are more than capable of out-playing those in front of them, they simply aren't getting the opportunity for one reason or another.

All to say, I think it's a mistake falling to the argument of "well coach sees them in practice, so if they don't play they must not be passing mustard".

But I agree with the rest, just hate how you always fall back to that idea of yours which I've always found lacking.

This not to say either that we should suddenly start playing all our young players, etc., etc... but I don't think slighting their ability to play based purely on Stevens not getting them on the court (particularly in positions where we have an abundance of depth) is a good argument to make.

Its my stance because I have yet to see it disproved. All the young players Doc didn't play that went on to play huge minutes and be good elsewhere, where are they? Who are they? Bill Walker? JR Giddens? Who are these young players he didn't play that were so good?

I also don't see how anyone can look at D League video and come up with the idea that playing well there somehow translates to needing to get NBA minutes. Stevens sees Mickey, Young, Rozier, an Hunter in practice. He sees when they miss rotations consistently, when they make the wrong decision offensively consistently, when they aren't getting their position consistently, when they just aren't hitting their shots, when they just look lost. We don't see that.

So I think assuming these players are better than ones in front of them when we as fans have no idea whether that is true or not, is just off.

Again, I agree with much of what you're saying as the other side of the argument is also lacking. I just don't think that falling back to the "because he said so, it must be true" has much worth.

As for Giddens/Walker at least for my part it wasn't really about them being ready to play, but that one of them was enough to give us some limited minutes and help save the legs of our vets throughout the season. This was more important considering how weak our depth was in the SF position, for good or ill it was in our best interest to get them as prepared as possible. At least one of them. Give them some NBA experience. Sometimes it backfires, but the need to do so was there.

Bill Walker had a fairly productive 2010 season. He phased out in subsequent seasons, but there's that.

My argument was that giving Walker for example some limited minutes throughout the year wouldn't have impacted our win/loss record all that much if at all with the bonus that we would've kept Pierce/Allen fresher during the playoffs. We know how that went as well, did we not? Not only that, we needed someone like him to help defend Lewis because Scal couldn't, but we couldn't play him because he didn't have the experience either. So Doc was left with the worst case scenario because of lack of planning ahead.

But to you point, here's the other side... many players that the Celtics acquired mid season where clearly not ready, missed constant rotations, and just plain sucked for us. Yet Doc gave them ample playing time... that Doc was playing them, was it evidence that they were ready to take the court? Because they seemingly weren't, particularly if we're holding them to the standards you're mentioning (missing rotations etc).

We also had Leon Powe who struggled to get on the floor at times competing against Big Baby, in part because he had a knack for missed rotations and not moving the ball. So when Baby was playing ahead, it was understandable, still didn't take away from the fact that Powe was incredibly productive when given the opportunity despite those issues that Doc might've not been fond of. So we have a player who's not all that ready for Doc system, yet when given the opportunity, flaws and all, he could be productive.

So it's not all as simple as you're trying to paint it is all I'm saying.

[PhoSita]

The tank is over people.
Ainge pulled off a 1.5 year tank which netted us a team full of young talent that is likely to make the playoffs WHILE OTHER TEAMS  tank for us.

Enough already!

The "tank" might be over, for now, but we shouldn't assume the rebuild is completed.  Not by a long stretch.  And if one of those Brooklyn picks doesn't pan out, and Danny can't turn his pile of assets into a game-changer, it could be time to tank again a couple seasons from now.

It's nice the Celts can be respectable this year while still hoping for a top draft pick in the lottery.  Nonetheless, the team is still searching for answers on the road to becoming a threat in the playoffs.

[celticsclay]

This is a really bizarre thread. There is some basic math that comes into play here. We are obviously not going to lose 50 straight games. Why make a thread saying we should do something that isn't possible? Why not just say we should sign Larry Bird and try an experimental brain surgery on him.