PDA

View Full Version : Did any GM or head coach admit they were tanking ?



Chrisclover
01-13-2014, 02:00 AM
Here is the thing, for some teams, whose cap spaces are locked by garbage contracts ,or which are not appealling big markets,or which are struggling and it seems there is little hope for them to turn things around and make groundbreaking changes with the current rosters, tanking is a common practice by them.
Tanking is not a good thing for fans because when the team they are rooting for is determined to lose intentionally, the games are not that funny .Then they will just switch over to other sports like NFL, MLB.
The Lakers are struggling but Mitch said directly in the press conference that they were not and had never been tanking over the past few decades. But for a lot of fans, considering the 2014 draft is a phenomenal one, they actually want the Lakers to tank this single season.
I wonder did any GM or head coach admit they were tanking ?

2-ONE-5
01-13-2014, 10:59 AM
as a fan of a REBUILDING team (there is a difference) i am loving how things have turned out so far and to make it better we have to be the most exciting bottom 5 team in the league since we play no D and run on O. As for the Lakers they are LA they are never going to tank or rebuild bcuz they always beleive they can sign the top FA and thats what they will try to do everytime things go south.

as for admitting tanking i think it was the Jazz owner who said it anonymously early on.

Chrisclover
01-13-2014, 11:49 AM
you said it was said anonymously so how could you know he was the owner of the Jazz ?
as a fan of a REBUILDING team (there is a difference) i am loving how things have turned out so far and to make it better we have to be the most exciting bottom 5 team in the league since we play no D and run on O. As for the Lakers they are LA they are never going to tank or rebuild bcuz they always beleive they can sign the top FA and thats what they will try to do everytime things go south.

as for admitting tanking i think it was the Jazz owner who said it anonymously early on.

2-ONE-5
01-13-2014, 12:22 PM
was pretty clear the way it was worded.

NYCkid12
01-13-2014, 12:52 PM
To answer your question, no I don't remember any owner/coach saying directly the team is "tanking"

Just to put my thoughts on this whole "tanking" issue, I am of a fan of a rebuliding team (Orlando Magic) and I don't see it as this big problem that everyone else does. Personally, I think it's a neccessary step to building a consistent contender.

I also don't think a lot of the bad teams, like Orlando, are TRYING to lose games, they are just that bad lol. They are contructed in a way where they have to compete just to not get embarassed every night.

In my situation I don't turn off the TV to watch other teams instead of the Magic, it obviously sucks they aren't winning but I am able to see the bigger picture. Building with talent (like Harris, Harkless, Vucevic, Oladipo) gives me a hope of a deep talented team down the line that could compete for a decade if we make the right decisions and get a little luck.

To me building a contender starts with bottoming out (obviously there's exceptions like Miami)

ManRam
01-13-2014, 01:13 PM
"Tanking" is a word that's used too liberally and thus used incorrectly. It's used as a dirty word to describe what teams like Orlando, Philly, Boston and Utah are wisely doing. They're rebuilding, and trying to do it in the most beneficial and positive way. There shouldn't be anything negative at all directed towards the strategy they're implying.


I try to only use "tanking" later in the season when teams clearly have made an intentional effort day-to-day to not give themselves the best chance to win. That's something I'm comfortable associating a negative word to. Not anything these teams are doing thus far. Because I DARE you to go tell Brad Stevens, Brett Brown and so on that you think they're tanking. That's a joke. These coaches are trying to be competitive with what they have. The "tanking" comes from the front office's strategies, not early-season game-to-game activity. And that front office strategy isn't a thing worth bashing. These teams are running their best players out there, giving them big minutes while doing so. Go look at Boston's top 5 players and the minutes they're getting. Go look at Orlando's top 6 players and the minutes they're getting. Philly's top 4 players all play over 32 minutes a game. The scrubs for all of these teams aren't getting minutes.

The coaches aren't "tanking". They're doing the best they can with what they have, which just isn't much.

It's just a case of rebuilding teams simply not being able to be competitive. Not an intentional game-to-game effort to lose games.



I hate how the word is used. Even the Lakers...they aren't tanking intentionally daily. They just suck because Kobe is out, Pau has regressed, Nash blow and Dwight left. They're just a team that sucks...if they had it their way they wouldn't. LA isn't trying to lose games. Those players are playing the best they can. It's just a terrible roster. THat's not "tanking".

/end mini rant about semantics


No coach is going to admit to tanking...and I don't think any coach at this point is intentionally trying to lose games. No GM is going to say they're "tanking" publicly. GMs should be allowed to say, and comfortable with saying, that they are looking to the future and are rebuilding. But, again, "tanking" is a word that's misconstrued.

Chronz
01-13-2014, 01:29 PM
Some people define tanking by intentionally trotting out rosters not worth a damn in their current state, I dont. Its rebuilding more than tanking IMO. Why go all in for mediocrity when its best develop a young core you can build/grow with. Nobody is intentionally losing games, maybe the Jazz but even they have started optimizing their best lineups by not playing Kanter and Favors together. I dont know why, the point is for those 2 to learn how to play together not to maximize what is likely an 18 win team.

JasonJohnHorn
01-13-2014, 01:31 PM
They don't every use the word 'tanking', they use euphemisms like "this puts us in a good position in the future" or this helps "long term" or it "gives us flexibility moving forward".


They do not use the phrase 'tanking'. They are too diplomatic for that.

Sactown
01-13-2014, 03:24 PM
Most teams are rebuilding we will see the tanking in the last few weeks were teams decide to play their starters for 5 minutes

Goose17
01-13-2014, 04:42 PM
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/12/26/a-fix-for-tanking-the-double-edged-lottery-sword/

blahblahyoutoo
01-13-2014, 05:32 PM
don't know if dolan/mills came out and said it, but based on the way the knicks are playing, they're definitely tanking.

Sandman
01-13-2014, 05:48 PM
Nobody is going to admit they are "tanking".

No coach or player is going to lose on purpose.

The reality is that for all the teams that can't win in 2014, their contingency plans are very strong this year.

I think its also a widely accepted cliche that it is better to be at the bottom than in the middle in the NBA. The difference is this year there are 6 or 7 prizes instead of 1 or 2.

Chronz
01-13-2014, 05:48 PM
don't know if dolan/mills came out and said it, but based on the way the knicks are playing, they're definitely tanking.

How so?

Sandman
01-13-2014, 05:54 PM
don't know if dolan/mills came out and said it, but based on the way the knicks are playing, they're definitely tanking.

http://www.nba.com/games/20140109/MIANYK/gameinfo.html

2-ONE-5
01-13-2014, 06:03 PM
lol not possible for the Knicks to tank without a draft pick

THE MTL
01-13-2014, 06:15 PM
Tanking doesnt have to be losing games on purpose but more like making moves while sacrificing the overall well of the team. I consider chicago's trade of Deng or phillys trade of Jrue to be tank moves.

2-ONE-5
01-13-2014, 06:48 PM
how? No Rose in Chicago and Deng wasnt going to resign anyway. Sixers have been medicore and in NBA hell for nearly a decade now and keeping JRue with the current roster was going to assure more of the same with limited money to spend to become any better than a 4-8 seed year in year out. Oh yea it doesnt hurt that we replaced him with the ROY

NBA_Starter
01-13-2014, 07:01 PM
MJ admitted in the year we set the losing percentage record that the roster was worse than he had thought it would be so take that how you want to I guess.

RiceOnTheRun
01-13-2014, 08:05 PM
don't know if dolan/mills came out and said it, but based on the way the knicks are playing, they're definitely tanking.

Well that'd be completely idiotic, considering they don't own their own 2014 draft pick.

Also, you don't usually try to tank with a top 10 player on your team.

MrfadeawayJB
01-13-2014, 09:56 PM
They would be fined if admission of tanking occurred. They call it "rebuilding"

IndyRealist
01-13-2014, 10:01 PM
Fun fact, in the lottery era only five top 3 picks out of 87 have won a championship with the team that drafted them, and 3 of them were with the Spurs (Duncan, Robinson, and Sean Elliot). One was Darko Milicic. The last was Jason Kidd in a really round about way.

Tanking doesn't work.

blahblahyoutoo
01-13-2014, 11:18 PM
How so?

how else can you explain their record in the atlantic/east?

Sandman
01-13-2014, 11:21 PM
Fun fact, in the lottery era only five top 3 picks out of 87 have won a championship with the team that drafted them, and 3 of them were with the Spurs (Duncan, Robinson, and Sean Elliot). One was Darko Milicic. The last was Jason Kidd in a really round about way.

Tanking doesn't work.
haven't only like 5 or 6 teams even won a championship in the lottery era?

Doesn't this cutoff also leave out Hakeem, Magic and Jordan, who won a good chunk of those titles? Also Isiah Thomas who won 2?

Out of 29:
Jordan x 6
Duncan x 4
Magic x 3
Hakeem x 2
Isiah x 2

Thats 17/28 as a top 3 pick with the same team. Thats... a lot. Kevin McHale makes this 18. This is just because these guys were drafted in the year or two leading up to the lottery and accounted for a good chunk of the titles.

Then you have Shaq with another 4 with a different team, but still clearly a top 5 or better player. Then you have LeBron's 2 on the heat. These are 2 MVP caliber players that changed teams. How do you make that happen? No these teams did not necessarily do it by tanking, but good luck choreographing these moves again.

24/29 with a top 3 pick now.

The last 5 are the 08 Celitcs, 04 Pistons, '11 Mavs and Kobe's other 2 titles. Kidd and Chauncey are top picks but w/e those don't need to count. The rest above are superstars.

So these are your exceptions -- the Celtic big three in 08, the 04 Pistons, Dirk, Kobe, Shaq and Lebron. Good luck recreating these situations.

So no, tanking to get a top pick is not a great way to win a title. Basically its just a better alternative to being a middling team. You need an all time great to win a title, and there's no blueprint for that. Special circumstances are necessary.

phoenix_bladen
01-14-2014, 03:21 PM
Fun fact, in the lottery era only five top 3 picks out of 87 have won a championship with the team that drafted them, and 3 of them were with the Spurs (Duncan, Robinson, and Sean Elliot). One was Darko Milicic. The last was Jason Kidd in a really round about way.

Tanking doesn't work.

Sure nothing is guaranteed, but it's one of the ways to have a higher chance of obtaining young talent with potential that puts ur team in a position to compete.

A team may or may not win a championship, but if they're constantly contending like the mavs have done it for years before winning a ring, it puts the fans in their seats and generates more revenue for the team.

I wouldn't mind my team compete for 10 straight years but never getting a ring. I rather watch that team then a team that only gets sweeped or barely makes the playoffs and never realistically have a chance to win a ring.

Chronz
01-14-2014, 09:08 PM
How so?

how else can you explain their record in the atlantic/east?
Bad management

NBA_Starter
01-14-2014, 11:34 PM
Bad management

Well said

IndyRealist
01-15-2014, 08:05 AM
haven't only like 5 or 6 teams even won a championship in the lottery era?

Doesn't this cutoff also leave out Hakeem, Magic and Jordan, who won a good chunk of those titles? Also Isiah Thomas who won 2?

Out of 29:
Jordan x 6
Duncan x 4
Magic x 3
Hakeem x 2
Isiah x 2

Thats 17/28 as a top 3 pick with the same team. Thats... a lot. Kevin McHale makes this 18. This is just because these guys were drafted in the year or two leading up to the lottery and accounted for a good chunk of the titles.

Then you have Shaq with another 4 with a different team, but still clearly a top 5 or better player. Then you have LeBron's 2 on the heat. These are 2 MVP caliber players that changed teams. How do you make that happen? No these teams did not necessarily do it by tanking, but good luck choreographing these moves again.

24/29 with a top 3 pick now.

The last 5 are the 08 Celitcs, 04 Pistons, '11 Mavs and Kobe's other 2 titles. Kidd and Chauncey are top picks but w/e those don't need to count. The rest above are superstars.

So these are your exceptions -- the Celtic big three in 08, the 04 Pistons, Dirk, Kobe, Shaq and Lebron. Good luck recreating these situations.

So no, tanking to get a top pick is not a great way to win a title. Basically its just a better alternative to being a middling team. You need an all time great to win a title, and there's no blueprint for that. Special circumstances are necessary.

The cutoff of 1985 was chosen because prior to then, it really WAS a decent strategy to tank, because the #1 was guaranteed to the worst team and you had no cap restrictions to keep you from buying a championship. The way the cap works now, if you get a top pick and then extend him, you are extremely unlikely to have to cap space to sign enough talent around him to win it all (see Cleveland and Lebron). You've shot yourself in the foot. Championships are won by free agents and trades, not by the draft.

And Indiana has no players picked higher than 10th. So please explain how tanking is "better" than being a middling team?

IndyRealist
01-15-2014, 08:24 AM
Sure nothing is guaranteed, but it's one of the ways to have a higher chance of obtaining young talent with potential that puts ur team in a position to compete.

A team may or may not win a championship, but if they're constantly contending like the mavs have done it for years before winning a ring, it puts the fans in their seats and generates more revenue for the team.

I wouldn't mind my team compete for 10 straight years but never getting a ring. I rather watch that team then a team that only gets sweeped or barely makes the playoffs and never realistically have a chance to win a ring.

But tanking simply doesn't work, unless you're the Spurs and get an all-star in every draft.

Teams with top 5 picks in
2013: Cleveland, Orlando, Washington, Charlotte, Phoenix
2012: New Orleans, Charlotte, Washington, Cleveland, Sacramento
2011: Cleveland x2, Minnesota, Utah, Toronto
2010: Washington, Philly, New Jersey, Minnesota, Sacramento
2009: Clippers, Memphis, OKC, Sacramento, Minnesota

Notice how you see the SAME teams over and over? Cleveland, Washington, Minnesota, and Sacramento have 3 top 5 picks in the last 5 years. Charlotte and Washington have two. How many of these teams are going to be in the lottery AGAIN this year?

2-ONE-5
01-15-2014, 10:57 AM
draft pools havent been this strong in a long time...

Sandman
01-15-2014, 12:00 PM
The cutoff of 1985 was chosen because prior to then, it really WAS a decent strategy to tank, because the #1 was guaranteed to the worst team and you had no cap restrictions to keep you from buying a championship.
I understand why you made that the cut off, but judging on titles alone it is still flawed because of the amount of the available titles those players won.

The way the cap works now, if you get a top pick and then extend him, you are extremely unlikely to have to cap space to sign enough talent around him to win it all (see Cleveland and Lebron). You've shot yourself in the foot. Championships are won by free agents and trades, not by the draft.
Championships are won on a combination of all 3. More specifically, championships are won by top 5 players, and just about all of them are found in the top 3 of the draft. You can't say they are won by free agency and trades because just like the draft, those players are not always available.

And Indiana has no players picked higher than 10th. So please explain how tanking is "better" than being a middling team?
Like I said, there is no set way to do it. And if your criteria is winning titles then you can throw the Pacers out too. I am sure if you expanded this to contenders your argument will get worse but there will be plenty of examples on either side.

blahblahyoutoo
01-15-2014, 12:10 PM
Bad management

aka tanking? aka riggin for wiggins? aka scandal for randle?
doesn't management decide whether to tank or not?

Sandman
01-15-2014, 12:22 PM
aka tanking? aka riggin for wiggins? aka scandal for randle?
doesn't management decide whether to tank or not?

lol did you skip the other posts where people told you they dont have a draft pick?