RealGM

So it seems like every game thread now (and most other threads) have some discussion of tanking in them so I thought I would ask what everyone's general thoughts on tanking are?
It doesn't even have to be specific to the Suns, just the concept of tanking in general.

Personally I don't like it at all. I think it makes a mockery of the sport and is insulting to the fans. I'd much rather watch my team trying to win every game with the intention of always trying to make the playoffs at the very least. Sure some years it might seem worth it to tank when there is someone like a Kevin Durant coming into the league but there are never any guarantees IMO. Luck plays a huge part. I mean look at Oden...the Blazers could have picked Durant instead...

So many top 10 picks have been a bust. It's all about scouting and if you're good at it then you can find good (or even great) players if you're picking out of the top 10 or even in the second round.

I'd rather my team had a winning culture and a winning mentality no matter what the circumstances. I'll support my team through good times and bad but I can't support tanking. Rebuilding I could support (though I prefer retooling...that's a different story). Sometimes it's a fine line between rebuilding and tanking but I think there is a difference.

P.S despite my comments, gotta say I like the Kerrsed tank

It is pointless to tank. It just breeds a losing mentality, and if we are keeping any of these players it would just hinder the future. Plus Stern has already made it clear that he will f*ck any team that tries to tank. He already loves doing that to us, let's not placate him, just to get a 5-7 pick in a draft that might have players skipping due to a possible lockout. But if many threads already have this theme, why not just post your thoughts there?

I don't like actual "tanking", where the star/veteranplayers are put out on the court and asked to purposely lose the game. I just feel that if the players are not going to give 100%, there is no point in even turning up for the game. Its just a waste of money and time.

However, I fully support the notion of trading our older players for young talent, (unproven or not) and ask them to go out and play 40 minutes a game, but also give 100%. As fans, you know that these young guys will probably not win many games, because they do not have the skill level and experience as other players do, but they will develop and gain experience as they play heavy minutes.

As they devlop, and well, lose games, you end up with a high draft pick at the end of the season, which will also help the team. I like to call this "benefitial defeats."

To be honest, I would rather experience a season of "beneficial defeats" than a season of being stuck in mediocrity as our old players get even older.

RunDogGun wrote:It is pointless to tank. It just breeds a losing mentality, and if we are keeping any of these players it would just hinder the future.

+1

RunDogGun wrote:But if many threads already have this theme, why not just post your thoughts there?

Well there isn't really one specific thread about this subject that I can see. Seems to come up in the game threads a lot but seemed pointless posting it there since those threads die relatively quickly.

Yeah, it's a complete waste of time. There are franchises who are constantly in tank mode, year after year and yet they get nowhere even after a handful of top picks. Also, I agree with RDG about it breeding a losing mentality. If we decide to tank one year and the pick doesn't pan out, it's becomes so much easier to just tank again and again until we finally hit the jackpot. It just doesn't work.

lilfishi22 wrote:Yeah, it's a complete waste of time. There are franchises who are constantly in tank mode, year after year and yet they get nowhere even after a handful of top picks. Also, I agree with RDG about it breeding a losing mentality. If we decide to tank one year and the pick doesn't pan out, it's becomes so much easier to just tank again and again until we finally hit the jackpot. It just doesn't work.

I agree that it's not worth it, and I think tanking should be really strictly enforced, although there's no way to really prove it in most cases.

It's just stupid in sports, which are supposed to be about competition, to blow off a season in front of your fans.

Tanking only works if you can get a surefire superstar. Few drafts have such prospects which is why a lot of teams stay bad for a long time. I'm against tanking in general, especially this year with a pretty weak looking draft class that could get weaker by threat of a lockout.

Yeah this draft class would be a terrible one to tank for

Plus, to be honest, I have a very hard time picturing Nash being OK with tanking. He's just too hard a competitor - he had to be, to be such an amazing baller with his body (isn't there a football term that pops up about this occasionally?)

I'd only accept tanking if Gentry was fired and Sarver stepped in as interim coach.

lilfishi22 wrote:I'd only accept tanking if Gentry was fired and Sarver stepped in as interim coach.

I would only accept it if Sarver wore one of those giant foam fingers while he was coaching.

phx#7 wrote:Tanking only works if you can get a surefire superstar.

+1 but even then how can you truly know the player you are picking will pan out. For example in 1996, Kobe was picked 13th and Nash 14th. Players picked ahead of them included Samaki Walker, Todd Fuller and Vitaly Potopenko. Bet those teams wish they could go back in time and change their picks.

Living in Australia and not having as much exposure to the college game, I don't really know much about this Perry Jones who everyone is talking about but I do know that while he could be a superstar, he could also just be another Todd Fuller (no disrespect to him).

Would much rather watch this team fighting for the playoffs than tanking.

There's certain situations where the 97' Spurs and 02' Cavs were smart for tanking but they near the bottom anyway. We're not even in the top 10 pick range right now. If we were around Sacramento and Minnesota and those teams it wouldn't bother me. Honestly, this team is an Iggy and PF away from being good. Not contenders but second roundish material and that puts people in the seats.

Nash went 15th in that draft, and Kobe was traded by Hornets for Vladi. It is hard to tell how good a guy will be. Scouting is much harder than it looks, and while guys may seem like they have a high ceiling, they might turn out terrible. For example we thought Sene would be an awesome player, he was drafted by Seatle with the tenth pick, and now he no longer plays in the league. And again, Stern will not let us have a number one pick, so it is pointless to tank. We've never had a number one pick ever in the history of this franchise, and we have only had six in the top five.

nash is a warrior, he will never tank no matter how badly we are playing. "tanking' doesn't make much sence when you're 2.5 games out of a playoff spot. we get into the playoffs and anything could happen. A win tomorrow agains NY and all of a sudden we're riding a 3 game streak. tomorrow is a very important. TOMORROW IS AN EARLY GAME DON'T FORGET TO TUNE IN!!

impulsenine wrote:Plus, to be honest, I have a very hard time picturing Nash being OK with tanking. He's just too hard a competitor - he had to be, to be such an amazing baller with his body (isn't there a football term that pops up about this occasionally?)

Absolutely agree, no way he'd sign off

visions wrote:+1 but even then how can you truly know the player you are picking will pan out. For example in 1996, Kobe was picked 13th and Nash 14th.

What I mean about surefire superstars is guys like James/Duncan/Shaq. Guys who everyone knew would be truly special long before they ever stepped on an NBA court. Oden would be an example of a failed prospect of that caliber, but that is due to injuries.

With the way the lottery works and the bust/homerun potential with pretty much any lottery pick it really doesn't make sense to tank without an elite prospect. Even then I wouldn't want to "tank" so much as go with a youth movement and let the losses fall where they may, like the Suns did in the '02-'03 season when they fell out of contention.

Miklo wrote:
Absolutely agree, no way he'd sign off

He wouldn't be on the team if the team were truly trying to tank.

Tanking is akin to the mentality of, well, lotteries. There is a reason why they call it the draft lottery. As you all have aluded to, it's far from surefire.

If you want an example of how to draft, look at the Spurs. It's almost embarrassing how much better they are than other teams. Seriously, they haven't had a lotto pick in over a decade.

Outside of Dragic, I've been disappointed with our recent draft days decisions.

I'd rather have an outside shot at a decent post season run than an outside shot of a potential bust.

visions wrote:

lilfishi22 wrote:I'd only accept tanking if Gentry was fired and Sarver stepped in as interim coach.

I would only accept it if Sarver wore one of those giant foam fingers while he was coaching.

That would be comedic GOLD. Kerrsed has to shop something up out of this