Need to tank hard to ensure Simmons comes to Boston.

[PhoSita]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

[slamtheking]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

there's a difference between doing what you've mentioned and what the OP proposed in giving away any discernible talent on the roster for pennies on the dollar in the hopes of increasing the chances of landing 1 particular player in the draft that he's convinced will be the next Lebron --> you know, like Wiggins has become when he was getting the same level of pre-draft hype 

[Csfan1984]

I'm okay with tanking only if the guys we trade away are traded for value not scraps. The two guys with the most value after all have decent replacements. IT can be replaced with Smart/Rozier. AB can be replaced be Hunter/Young. The replacements develop along side our top picks best case Simmons(1) and Poeltl (5).

Now that I explained thoughts on the players to deal and targets in draft question is what can we get?

Lottery pick route= Which team has a lottery pick that isn't their own to trade for AB or IT? That is only Philly, Toronto, Boston. Philly isn't trading for vets. Raptors may want to add more firepower. Yet Raptors pick is via Knicks and that looks like a gamble. Would I take the shot yes but only if I land Knicks pick and a additional pick say 2017 or 2018 Raptors 1st and is only IT and AJ.  So Patterson, Cabo, Joseph, Johnson, NY pick and a future 1st for IT and AJ. C's releases Johnson and buys out Patterson.

Young players with potential route= Trade AB and a second rounder to Bulls for Mirotic and McBuckets. Bulls can start Butler at the three.

Those are the two tank trades I do

Smart/Joseph/ Rozier
Hunter/Young
Crowder/McBuckets
Sully/Mirotic/Cabo
Zeller/KO/Mickey
Picked up one lottery first, a future first, lost one second.

[nickagneta]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

[cb8883]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

This is all the better reason to trade Bradley now! He's having a career season. Thomas should be shuttled out of town ASAP as well while the damage is only 3 games over .500. This is a treadmill team as currently constructed. They are stuck in that 39-42 win range. If they embrace the tank for one more year they can have TWO lottery picks in a really good draft. Otherwise this team is going to be looking up to the Sixers in the division for the next decade or so especially if they get the next LeBron, Simmons.

[spikelovetheCelts]

Play to win. We have Brooklyn's pick for Simmons. Use our picks for a current Star. Ingram may end up being better than Simmons as well.

[MBunge]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

This is all the better reason to trade Bradley now! He's having a career season. Thomas should be shuttled out of town ASAP as well while the damage is only 3 games over .500. This is a treadmill team as currently constructed. They are stuck in that 39-42 win range. If they embrace the tank for one more year they can have TWO lottery picks in a really good draft. Otherwise this team is going to be looking up to the Sixers in the division for the next decade or so especially if they get the next LeBron, Simmons.

Math is our friend.

It will be almost impossible to out tank Philly or the Lakers, so the best/worst we could do is third  most losses in the league.  Having the third worst record means you are statistically most likely going to get the 5th pick.

Exactly how much damage should you do to your team and franchise for the 5th pick in any draft?

Mike

[footey]

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.

It got us Ray Allen. Who got us KG. Who won us a championship.  So it sort of worked in the '06-'07 season, even though we dropped to the 5th pick. I also think it will eventually work for Philly.

But all that being said, I definitely do not want to tank. We are set up with a good core group of players. We are one stud player from competing at the championship level. And we have Brooklyn picks for the next 3 seasons. Let them tank for us.  PS I wonder how bad Memphis will be in '18?

[playdream]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

dude you are sooooooo wrong

[i believe in brad]

This is all the better reason to trade Bradley now! He's having a career season. Thomas should be shuttled out of town ASAP as well while the damage is only 3 games over .500. This is a treadmill team as currently constructed. They are stuck in that 39-42 win range. If they embrace the tank for one more year they can have TWO lottery picks in a really good draft. Otherwise this team is going to be looking up to the Sixers in the division for the next decade or so especially if they get the next LeBron, Simmons.

If you think Celtics are a 39-42 win team as currently constructed you are kidding yourself and have not been watching them play.  Even knee-jerk reaction after the 3 game skid we were over .500 with a very winnable stretch in front of us.  Put your money where your mouth is if you think we're that bad because you'd get decent odds on under 42.5 wins at this point.

[Rosco917]

What's amusing... is for some, by the time the tanking is over and done with, they themselves won't even be Celtic fans anymore.

[hwangjini_1]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

i agree with your points, save the one i bolded. i can see how a team could shift into a developmental mode to develop players and be willing to lose games as part of the process. at the same time, that is NOT the same as saying we are in developmental mode specifically and intentionally to lose as many games as possible.

i can conceive of a team wanting to develop players AND win games, just not as many games.

[Evantime34]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

If what you described is tanking. I'm completely on board.

I think there is a big difference between, playing guys who aren't as good now but could be better by the end of the season given playing time and tanking. Popovich in the past has put young players in his rotation who weren't his best players so that his team could be at it's best by the end of the year.

What we did last year is deal players who didn't have a future with the team. I would be in favor of doing this again this year. If dealing some of Amir, Sully, Lee, Jerebko, Zeller, and/or Turner for good value because the team thinks they can upgrade their position next year is tanking then I am all in favor of it.

I am not on board with trading players for less than value in order to make the team worse for more ping pong balls.

[hwangjini_1]

Is it really "tanking" if you simply prioritize something other than winning in the present?


Like, the team could decide to stop giving Amir, Lee, and Turner playing time -- because they have no future here and they're not that good -- and instead use their playing time to develop Mickey, Young, Rozier, and Hunter.

Is that tanking, i.e. purposefully being worse in order to lose games? 

Or is it just saying, hey, developing our young guys is more valuable toward achieving our goal of building this team into something special than maximizing our chances of winning this game in December in a season in which we might not make the playoffs and have no hope of getting very far if we make it anyway?

In this case, yes, it is tanking. You paid big bucks to bring in players like Amir and Jerebko, role players, for the sake of winning because rookies don't win. Once you prioritize winning, then saying you are changing into developmental mode is just shopspeak for, let's give up on winning and try to lose as much as possible while players that might not be as good as these expensive role players try to develop.

I am pretty sure Hunter will never be as good as Bradley is now. I know Young won't be. Why sit Bradley to play them when they may never ever be as good as Bradley, who is young and still getting better? Same holds true for Mickey. He mightt be a different player than KO or Sully but is there any proof he will be anywhere near as good as those two role players who are still on friendly contracts and still young and getting better.

I think at this point, if the C's switch gears and try to explain to the fanbase they are just trying to develop the youth, then I think they will p!ss off a large portion of their fanbase as they know they will be overtly tanking.

dude you are sooooooo wrong

dude you are sooooo weak since you don't provide a single reason, fact, or piece of data to support your thought. let's do better than simply stating something and leaving it to lanquish. how about expanding on your opinion in ways that make it more compelling and informative?

oh, and merry christmas. 

[i believe in brad]

i agree with your points, save the one i bolded. i can see how a team could shift into a developmental mode to develop players and be willing to lose games as part of the process. at the same time, that is NOT the same as saying we are in developmental mode specifically and intentionally to lose as many games as possible.

i can conceive of a team wanting to develop players AND win games, just not as many games.

RJ has played 18, 19, 18 minutes the last 3 games.  Starting with Pels game James Young played 20, 16, 20, 13, 16 minutes over a 5 game stretch.  To me they ARE developing the young dudes.  Playing 15-20 min a game with vets allows them to develop good habits.

Now RJ/Young seem to be at the level where they can handle NBA minutes and not throw up on themselves, that's why they're given these spurts.  I trust CBS enough to let him make those calls on who is ready and who is not.