The Tank Thread

[KB21]

1 hour ago, High5 said:

It's not "championship or bust." It's "actually have a chance to compete for a championship one day or bust." And there is nothing sudden about it. 

Well, maybe one day, you pro tankers will see the team back in the playoffs, which is the only time you actually have a chance at winning a championship.  It's going to be a long time before that happens because of the decisions made this past off season.

[GThawks3]

15 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Well, maybe one day, you pro tankers will see the team back in the playoffs, which is the only time you actually have a chance at winning a championship.  It's going to be a long time before that happens because of the decisions made this past off season.

Good...much rather tank then make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round and get a pick in 17-19 range.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, GThawks3 said:

Good...much rather tank then make the playoffs and lose in the 1st round and get a pick in 17-19 range.

So you would much rather lose than win.  That has been confirmed now.  

[GThawks3]

34 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So you would much rather lose than win.  That has been confirmed now.  

Losing in the first round isn’t winning. Still don’t understand why don’t get that. 

[Jungle Jack]

5 minutes ago, GThawks3 said:

Losing in the first round isn’t winning. Still don’t understand why don’t get that. 

With as many teams that are purposely sucking as there are, I would damn sure want to be competitive as opposed to purposely losing considering what it risks to the players.

 

I get the whole better to compete for rings than go out in the first round and have a craptastic draft pick.  Regardless, we are deep in the tank and the hope for me now is to dig out ASAP.

[GThawks3]

3 minutes ago, Jungle Jack said:

With as many teams that are purposely sucking as there are, I would damn sure want to be competitive as opposed to purposely losing considering what it risks to the players.

 

I get the whole better to compete for rings than go out in the first round and have a craptastic draft pick.  Regardless, we are deep in the tank and the hope for me now is to dig out ASAP.

Well when you go to the playoffs 10 straight years and don’t win a game past the 2nd round something got to change. 

I hope we tank for 2 more years. All comes down to picking the right guys in the draft. 

[Jungle Jack]

4 minutes ago, GThawks3 said:

Well when you go to the playoffs 10 straight years and don’t win a game past the 2nd round something got to change. 

I hope we tank for 2 more years. All comes down to picking the right guys in the draft. 

Weren't we in the ECF?

[Buzzard]

11 minutes ago, GThawks3 said:

Losing in the first round isn’t winning. Still don’t understand why don’t get that. 

For some teams who have missed the playoffs for years, a 1st round exit is a win. But that is not us. Here is a funny fact: the Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets, and Suns are in longer playoff droughts than everyone's whipping boy, the Brooklyn Nets.

The Kings fans should boycott until they make a playoff. 12 years and counting is stupid incompetence. The poor Suns fans should be feeling the same way.

[hazer]

5 minutes ago, Jungle Jack said:

Weren't we in the ECF?

Yup, and got swept. Still makes “...and don’t win a game past the 2nd round...” a true statement.

[Eddielives]

7 hours ago, KB21 said:

This is never the best path for any team.

Never?  That sounds like a statement of absolute truth.  This is how frustrating it is to try and get through to stubborn people that seem incapable of even entertaining the notion of an opposing idea without having to accept it as truth.  There are way more than one example of how due to being really bad/tanking and getting that one franchise changing player or even a couple in a short stretch of time, has catapulted a team from an otherwise undesirable location for any superstar free agent and floundering in mediocrity and overpaid leftovers after the big names are signed year after year to a desirable place to sign and make a run for a championship by those superstars.  And NO THIS ISN'T A STATEMENT THAT IT IS THE ONLY AND ALWAYS THE BEST WAY!  Can that be understood?  Surely there's enough humility to see that this statement of it "never" is the best path is just factually wrong and yet it doesn't mean you have to run and hide in shame to admit it.  I can understand the arguments against tanking and accept some of those points as valid without feeling the need to respond with something so empty of substance as this statement that is the equivalent of someone closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears.

[Jungle Jack]

Tanking makes a great deal of sense.  Especially if you are not a franchise in NY or LA where it will either take paying the most (seldom changes things) and or complimentary pieces/coaching that are worthwhile.  Simply, should an actual All NBA player be available at 3, the chances of him wanting to come here at 27 or whenever the post rookie contract ends has traditionally been slim.

Joe might be the best FA we got in at least a decade.

The biggest issue to me is what it does to all these 1st and 2nd year players when losing is to be expected.  Worse, Bud made it at least look like we might be the best 2x win team out there last year and of course met with the Greek's approval to be the Bucks HC.

While I remain optimistic about our new coach, lord only knows what kind of coach he will turn out to be.

[KB21]

24 minutes ago, Eddielives said:

Never?  That sounds like a statement of absolute truth.  This is how frustrating it is to try and get through to stubborn people that seem incapable of even entertaining the notion of an opposing idea without having to accept it as truth.  There are way more than one example of how due to being really bad/tanking and getting that one franchise changing player or even a couple in a short stretch of time, has catapulted a team from an otherwise undesirable location for any superstar free agent and floundering in mediocrity and overpaid leftovers after the big names are signed year after year to a desirable place to sign and make a run for a championship by those superstars.  And NO THIS ISN'T A STATEMENT THAT IT IS THE ONLY AND ALWAYS THE BEST WAY!  Can that be understood?  Surely there's enough humility to see that this statement of it "never" is the best path is just factually wrong and yet it doesn't mean you have to run and hide in shame to admit it.  I can understand the arguments against tanking and accept some of those points as valid without feeling the need to respond with something so empty of substance as this statement that is the equivalent of someone closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears.

There is never a point in time where intentional losing is the right thing to do or the correct course of action to take.   

[Eddielives]

Another general point about tanking too.  There are degrees to which certain teams do it.  If we're talking about starting out the season, game 1 of 82, with an agenda of losing on purpose, then I agree that is terrible.  Now, maybe some teams have secretly held this goal but I highly doubt it.  I think even the projected worst teams actually start out the year trying and seeing how it goes.  But about 30-40 games in, let's be honest, a team knows what it is.  And if that conclusion is that said bad team has nothing to gain by playing veteran players and benching youth to try and eek out a few more wins, then it's wise and a perfectly sound strategy.

[Eddielives]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

There is never a point in time where intentional losing is the right thing to do or the correct course of action to take.   

And yet it has resulted in bad teams getting a player they never would have before and helped them start to build a nucleus that has at times led to a championship.  I'm sorry.  I know the mods say stick to the post, not the poster, but you are not even trying to engage in a two way conversation and you need to be called out on it.

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, Eddielives said:

And yet it has resulted in bad teams getting a player they never would have before and helped them start to build a nucleus that has at times led to a championship.  I'm sorry.  I know the mods say stick to the post, not the poster, but you are not even trying to engage in a two way conversation and you need to be called out on it.

So, when this team has missed the playoffs for 5 consecutive years, are you going to realize that tanking doesn’t work.  

[KB21]

Looks at the history of tanking teams.

Yep, no playoffs for at least 5 years.  Guaranteed.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Looks at the history of tanking teams.

Yep, no playoffs for at least 5 years.  Guaranteed.

Philly missed the playoffs by accident in year 1 - they were competing then. In year 5 of their tank they were in the playoffs.

Celtics tanked after ditching KG and PP and watching Allen walk.  They were back in the playoffs shortly after.

There is no 5 year rule.  It can be longer or shorter.  Depends on the build.

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, AHF said:

Philly missed the playoffs by accident in year 1 - they were competing then. In year 5 of their tank they were in the playoffs.

Celtics tanked after ditching KG and PP and watching Allen walk.  They were back in the playoffs shortly after.

There is no 5 year rule.  It can be longer or shorter.  Depends on the build.

The Celtics didn't tank.  

[AHF]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

The Celtics didn't tank.  

Neither did the Hawks then.  They both racked up pitiful win totals by design after getting rid of their best vets.

[KB21]

Just now, AHF said:

Neither did the Hawks then.

So, who are the veterans the Hawks have gotten like the Celtics got that pushed them towards improving?  The Celtics rebuilt.  They didn't intentionally lose, and they didn't intentionally structure a multi year losing plan.