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/
Topic: If the Celtics are doing poorly....should they consider tanking? (Read 4500 times)