"Tanking": A clarification from all the nonsense...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CubanPete. Show CubanPete's posts

    "Tanking": A clarification from all the nonsense...

    Players do not tank. They have no incentive to do so. They are playing for their careers, their next contract, or their next team.

    Coaches do not tank. A coach that doesn't win doesn't last long and doesn't get on any other team's short list. Regardless of what camp you are in, by upsetting the Heat in Miami and having a 4-4 record, you have to admit, Brad Stevens can flat out coach. He's getting noticed, in a good way.

    The GM, if he's worth his salt, tanks when it's clear that his team can no longer compete for a spot in the Finals. DA unloaded KG and PP to the Nets. He's not through. That said, I believe DA waited a year too long to tank. While we're at it, lets use the more accurate term: "rebuild", rather than "tank". It's what all gererally smart teams do, in all sports, when they are in a simliar situation.

    Why are there so many NBA teams in the same boat as the Cs? Let me count the ways...

    Too many teams, not enough talent. Expansion money has been a quick fix for the owners.

    Too many teams in the playoffs. Byes and best of 3s/5s don't generate as much cash as having #1 vs #8 (or #2 vs #7) in a best of seven in round one.

    Since 2002-03 (1st season of the current format), there have been 44 #7 and #8 seeds in the postseason.  TWO have gotten beyond the 1st round. The 2006-07 8-seed Warriors upset the 67-win Mavericks. 8-seed Memphis upset the Spurs in 2010-11. Both teams got bounced in the very next round. Conclusion: #7 and #8 seeds DON'T BELONG IN THE PLAYOFFS!!! Yet, these pseudo playoff entries are denied participation in the draft lottery.

    My solution, which will never happen, is...

    Reduce the playoff field to 6 teams per conference. 1st round bye for division winners. Best of 5 for seeds 3-6.

    Get rid of the weighted lottery system. Teams that finish 40-42 and barely miss the playoffs are just as desititute as the team that ends their season at 15-67. This way, GMs have little or no incentive to tank.

    Since none of these will ever happen, the only way to rebuild is to tank, tank, tank, until you get lucky and land a true star.

    Don't like it? Blame the NBA. They created this environment.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re:

    Well, they tried to water it down with the weighted lottery.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CubanPete. Show CubanPete's posts

    Re:

    In response to cole-ely's comment:

     

    Well, they tried to water it down with the weighted lottery.

     




    I believe the original purpose of the lottery was to give the Knicks A CHANCE at landing Patrick Ewing. Eventhough that had happened, I won't accuse the NBA of fixing, since there's no proof. The Warriors were the worst team and they wound up at 7th.

    NBA Draft Lottery (History)

    Basically, teams have more incentive to tank now than ever since only the top 3 picks are allotted and you can get pivotal players with picks 4-12.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re:



    I agree with you once again Mel.....expansion has diluted most of the major sports....too many teams....too little talent.....but it's all about the money....and why should any of us be surprised..?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from teejaytee70. Show teejaytee70's posts

    Re:

    In response to melswitt's comment:

    In response to CubanPete's comment:

    In response to cole-ely's comment:

     

    Well, they tried to water it down with the weighted lottery.

     




    I believe the original purpose of the lottery was to give the Knicks A CHANCE at landing Patrick Ewing. Eventhough that had happened, I won't accuse the NBA of fixing, since there's no proof. The Warriors were the worst team and they wound up at 7th.

    NBA Draft Lottery (History)

    Basically, teams have more incentive to tank now than ever since only the top 3 picks are allotted and you can get pivotal players with picks 4-12.



    The weighted lottery WAS a way to give the Knicks a chance to land Ewing...and the draft should simply follow the prior season's record of wins and losses so if a team, like the Colts in football a couple of years ago, decided to tank on purpose it would be VERY obvious....

     

    There are far too many teams and very little real talent on them anymore...three "stars" almost gets you into the finals, or at least deep into the playoffs....in the 60's and 70's almost every team could go 6 or 7 deep of great players...if you only had three, you were done...expansion and TV contract $$$ greed destroyed the game...



    Right.  The NBA should contract by at least 4 teams.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from chetgnat. Show chetgnat's posts

    Re:

    You can sort of "tank" just by creating an atmosphere. Nobody intentionally misses shots but if everyone gets the "meh who cares?" vibe, it sort of takes care of itself.  

    They would absolutely be better off if they do tank. Sully, Olynyk, Rondo, Green and Bradley would make a solid core for this team to build around. If they get a top draft pick who can come in and either work off the bench, or prove good enough to force one of these guys to come off the bench (I think Bradley is best suited for a 6th man role but you could make the case for Olynyk and Green too), then the Celtics will officially have one of the deeper teams in the league, full of guys with a similar attitude and mindset that they can mold as a unit. And it will have taken all of 1 year, a-la yo Boston Red Sox, to complete the transformation.

    Most of the rest of the guys who have been here a while can go. Bass is first on the list. I desperately hope he is unloaded this year but his contract is one of the less egregious of the bad ones, and he's a good guy so they might keep him. Lee is probably next. I don't think he'll accept his diminished role going forward. Wallace might be useful to bring some toughness for playoff runs, but he's so overpaid that if they can offload him they would and should. He's got another 2 years on that horrible contract .

    Humphries is just kind of there, but will, with 100% certainty, not be there after this season.

    Crawford will be interesting, because now he's gotten a taste of real playing time, and he seems like the kind of guy who will whine and pout about any sort of demotion, so he could end up being an open wound for another year or so. 

    Fav? Stays. Cuz I like him. 

    There's your blueprint. Get to work, Danny and Bradley.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re:

    You "tank" by attrition not because players or coaches are dogging it.  You're playing players that you're showcasing for trade, not necessarily because that player assures you the most victories. 

    What's the point of playing to win if by season's end you're only good enough to get bounced from the first round of the playoffs, if you think this way then every year will be the same result; mediocrity, limbo, just good enough...

    Without Rondo it isn't worth trying to win 50-60 games, it would be better to create a positive atmosphere that entices free agents and possible trading chips, that allows young talent like Sully, Bradley and Oly to grow and mature so they either become good enough to win when Rondo returns or become good enough to trade for somebody substantial.  We're trying to get better, if you want to call it tanking that's up to you, the Celtic's didn't create the system, they are merely working it.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share