If the Celtics are doing poorly....should they consider tanking?

[Donoghus]

The tanking ship sailed a couple of years ago.

Also, as others mentioned, there is no real incentive to tank due to the unique nature of our trade with BKN and the '17 draft's impact on both teams.  Tanking could conceivably hurt the Celtics via the '18 pick.

[CelticPride2016]

I guess when people realize speculating on trades is boring, it becomes time to discuss the possibility of a 48 win team adding Horford tanking the following year.

Maybe I will start a thread speculating if Brad Stevens will leave to coach Indiana University if the Celtics do poorly.

[celticsclay]

I am not trying to flame you but this just doesn't make any sense with the pick swap and having their 2018 pick.

[YoungOne87]

makes no sense, nets will tank for us...

[oldtype]

We should consider tanking if we don't do particularly well this year and then strike out on 2017 offseason.

AB and IT have big contracts coming up in summer 2018, and it doesn't make sense to kill our cap flexibility by paying out big money long term to both.

Therefore, it makes sense for us to dump AB/IT/and Horford for what we can get and let Smart, Brown and the 2017 pick take over the team. I assume this team will still be decent because Brad Stevens so it's not really a tank though.

[alldaboston]

We get this topic every year huh? "if we suck halfway through the season, lets do a half-hearted tank job".

[Alleyoopster]

Sorry, I should have made the nature of the post different. What I believe, is the current collective bargaining agreement changes the tanking paradigm. Forget about whether it's the Celtics or another team. 

It's my guess the CBA is a powder keg of sorts. For example, teams might be looking at tanking in a new light. For example, to get a star player via free agency will cost a team $25-30 million. Tanking done right could buy you a star player for a fraction of that cost. The Celtics are not immune to that sort of thinking.

My feeling is that the CBA may potentially create animosity between coaches and players. Also, it increases the possibility of players undermining each other either on or off the court. Say a coach wants the team to tank. That could mean certain players could miss out on millions of dollars. Surely, the players will not be happy with that sort of outcome.  It's also likely players will be more determined to do well and be more competitive. Yes, that is what we all want. Ultimately, it could backfire as basketball played at full tilt for 82 games is likely to bring about even more injuries (as if that is possible). I could go on, but I'm heading out.
 
Obviously, even before the new CBA what I mentioned was going on to some degree. Now, with mega-million$ at stake I think it be much more intense. 

[greece66]

Since we have the choice of swapping picks with the Nets, tanking is out of the question.

As BitterJim says, maybe in 2017-18, there are scenarios when it would make sense to tank, but even that seems unlikely.

In any case, we have picks running out of our ears (Brooklyn 2017, Brooklyn and BOS 2018, BOS, MEM and LAC 2019 + a lot of second rounders). More picks is hardly our problem now.

[BitterJim]

Sorry, I should have made the nature of the post different. What I believe, is the current collective bargaining agreement changes the tanking paradigm. Forget about whether it's the Celtics or another team. 

It's my guess the CBA is a powder keg of sorts. For example, teams might be looking at tanking in a new light. For example, to get a star player via free agency will cost a team $25-30 million. Tanking done right could buy you a star player for a fraction of that cost. The Celtics are not immune to that sort of thinking.

My feeling is that the CBA may potentially create animosity between coaches and players. Also, it increases the possibility of players undermining each other either on or off the court. Say a coach wants the team to tank. That could mean certain players could miss out on millions of dollars. Surely, the players will not be happy with that sort of outcome.  It's also likely players will be more determined to do well and be more competitive. Yes, that is what we all want. Ultimately, it could backfire as basketball played at full tilt for 82 games is likely to bring about even more injuries (as if that is possible). I could go on, but I'm heading out.
 
Obviously, even before the new CBA what I mentioned was going on to some degree. Now, with mega-million$ at stake I think it be much more intense.

I don't think this is likely to happen.  Coaches have such a high turnover rate in the NBA that attempting to lose games will hurt a coach's chances of keeping his job short term, which would eliminate the long-term benefits (to him) of coaching a better team down the road.  The only coaches who could potentially get away with it would be ones who are also the GM (like Doc or SVG), but in most cases I can't see the GM hurting his players' value by cutting down on playing time instead of trading them while their value is high

Not to mention that, since the NBAPA is guaranteed to get 50% of Basketball Related Income (BRI), even if a player is hurt financially by the CBA (although it seems like you really mean the new TV deal), players as a whole still benefit just as much

Tanking is always going to be an issue, since stars are so hard to come by.  The increase in the cap actually helped a bit (to clarify, the jump did, not the fact that it's now higher) by increasing mobility of star-level players (like Durant and Horford).  The fact that young stars are paid less shouldn't really play into it at all, since by the time they're really useful they're done with their rookie contract, and the really good ones qualify for the same max contract that Horford and Durant just got (in terms of % of cap) due to the Rose Rule.  Tanking will still be an issue, but not for salary reasons

[Big333223]

Sorry, I should have made the nature of the post different. What I believe, is the current collective bargaining agreement changes the tanking paradigm. Forget about whether it's the Celtics or another team. 

It's my guess the CBA is a powder keg of sorts. For example, teams might be looking at tanking in a new light. For example, to get a star player via free agency will cost a team $25-30 million. Tanking done right could buy you a star player for a fraction of that cost. The Celtics are not immune to that sort of thinking.

My feeling is that the CBA may potentially create animosity between coaches and players. Also, it increases the possibility of players undermining each other either on or off the court. Say a coach wants the team to tank. That could mean certain players could miss out on millions of dollars. Surely, the players will not be happy with that sort of outcome.  It's also likely players will be more determined to do well and be more competitive. Yes, that is what we all want. Ultimately, it could backfire as basketball played at full tilt for 82 games is likely to bring about even more injuries (as if that is possible). I could go on, but I'm heading out.
 
Obviously, even before the new CBA what I mentioned was going on to some degree. Now, with mega-million$ at stake I think it be much more intense.

When you say the "new CBA" do you mean the new salary cap? Because the collective bargaining agreement has been in place since 2011.

Also: No. Ridiculous.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Tank b/c we don't have a star then we get a star and it's tank "if" all goes wrong. I'm sure this thread would be the same if we had KD, probably not, nothing like this could go wrong with KD. 

Let's drop the w/ ifs and tank every season.

[Emmette Bryant]

It's now the dog days of summer* and the postings are slowing down. So, I thought I would throw out the old tanking debate to find out if any of us have changed our opinion on tanking.

Obviously, most of us have high expectations for next year. Especially with; the addition of a star player, the addition of a prized rookie and the further development of a few young players. Hopefully, things will work out and we'll break the 50 win barrier. In a perfect world everything works out and come Spring we're in the hunt for an Eastern Conference title.   

On the other hand, what if things don't work out. What if there is a series of setbacks such as a rash of injuries and/or a major trade takes place that backfires leaving the team in limbo. What do you think the Celtics should do? For example, let's say the team is 22-30 with 20 games until the end of the season and they have an easy schedule ahead of them. They could possibly win 15 of these games and get into the playoffs. Or, if they choose to tank, they could lose 15 of these games and end up in the lottery. 

With the recent success of not tanking it's seems most of us would prefer to do our best and make the playoffs. However, given that the new collective bargaining agreement makes it a lot more expensive to get top talent would you now consider tanking as an option. In other words, in past years one would hope to add top talent via free agency. Now, one has to think twice before jumping into the bidding war even for marginal players.   

This is simply a hypothetical exercise...so take the post with a grain of salt. Not with an actual intention or expectation to do poorly this year.

*http://farmersalmanac.com/weather/2015/06/29/why-are-they-called-dog-days-of-summer/

This question made my eyes start bleeding.