To Tank or not to Tank. That is the Question.

[nate33]

This came up in the Arenas traded for Rashard Lewis thread:

NOTE TO THIS BOARD. STOP TRYING TO GET "BETTER" FOR TWO YEARS. Let us tank and come back better than ever. LOSSES = wins. So, stop attempting to come up with "good" transactions and line-ups. Let us tank. That is all... Talk music and movies for awhile while we suck our way to the top...

I thought it was a topic worthy of it's own thread.

I don't think we should tank. Or rather, I think we should make every effort to win as many games possible as long as our young core (Wall, Young, Blatche, McGee) are getting plenty of minutes.

The way I see it, if we can win a decent number of games with these guys, despite their general young age and low bball IQ, then it means we have a pretty strong talent base. All those guys are going to get better over time, not to mention Booker and Seraphin. And we still will be adding what is most likely a mid-lotto pick (I don't see us making the playoffs), plus a good free agent or two in the next couple of years. With that much talent on the way, I think the benefits of developing a winning mindset outweigh the value of a high lotto pick.

Now, if we try hard to win over the next month or two, but still continue to suck, we can THEN decide to throw in the towel and tank hard. At that point, we play Seraphin over Armstrong, Booker over Thornton, and maybe see if we can get any value by trading Hinrich and/or Howard at the Trade Deadline. And maybe we give up one one of Blatche and McGee and try and make a trade to change the character of our front line.

[hands11]

WOW. I hated that post the first time I read it.

Win if we can right now.

You dont want to have so many loosing seasons back to back.

I read it all the time. Posting saying something about a player only being good on a loosing team. Well, lets win and see how good the players are we have.

We have an owner with pockets.
We have a #1 pick.
We have Nick 2.0
We have interesting developing talent like Dray
We have some young vet who were highly regarded that could still grow into roles.
We have some seasoned vets who know how the play the NBA game.

This organization need to develop a new culture. Moving Gil was a key part in this.

Flip should have clear control of this roster now so if we can win then he can teach the younger players better. They need to be challenged to grow. Loosing doesn't provide that environment.

[montestewart]

Planning to tank now and get good later sounds like...a lot of other great ideas.

Young players don't develop because the team's tanking. All the players pick up bad habits and bad attitudes, because the team's tanking. FAs (especially valuable role-playing veterans) don't want to come to DC at full market rate, much less a cut rate, because it's a loser tank team. Lousy stat stuffer players will flock here to fill out their lines in a perpetual losing effort on the tanking Wizards. Wizards never get the calls because let's face it, if the team's tanking, they must be on the wrong end of that foul (it takes a few years to turn around such ref bias). What if the Wizards never get a high pick again? What if the Wizards don't magically get better in year three, and are still bad in year four, and Wall get's tired of playing on a perpetually tanking team?

But even if all that happens, the team can always count on the loyal fans to keep buying tickets and tuning in to watch a team that's tanking. Maybe we can assist by cheering the visiting team (because really, there just isn't enough of that) and yelling at the refs whenever calls go the Wizards' way. The sales department can market Wizards 0 for 3 pack ticket plans.

Perhaps someone else can handle the cons of tanking.

[Ruzious]

Before the discussion goes awry, I think we should define what is meant by tanking. It does not mean the players or coaches try to lose games. What it does mean is that veterans are played less and more attention and PT is given to inexperienced players that you plan will be part of your future. In fact, you are trying to develop the young players. And you do not trade for veterans like Camby or Haywood or a modern day version of a 33 year old Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe. You play Seraphin in the hopes that he'll become the next Ben Wallace - rather than trade him for the next Ike Austin. All of these factors presumably lead to more short-term losing.

[barelyawake]

What Ruz said. And without the time or want to write a huge post here, it should be mentioned that the comment I made was in response to "hoping Rashard is a good player for us." We don't want Rashard to be a good player -- because he's not in our long term plans. We need more top picks. And I'll say again, as a repeat of the four month conversation from the Summer, those that don't think so are kidding themselves. We need more talent. We need another super star. We need robin for our batman. Without him, we are going exactly nowhere for another decade. Of course, you "try" to win. You just play young players and allow them to develop. And in doing so, you will naturally lose.

My favorite quote was, "We have Nick Young." As if that matters, against the super teams the NBA is creating.

[Hoopalotta]

We should maximize developmental basketball and let the potato crisps fall where they may. If we actually win, then the value and effectiveness of our young players will increase. If we lose, then we were tanking all along and just didn't know it.

That means that I'd try to play Lewis at Small Forward even if it's not his best position because we have no one to develop there and I'd try and find a way for Seraphin to be in the rotation even if he's a bit raw.

And also.....uh......there is no "and also". Other than that, there's probably not much practical difference between the two strategies as far as action steps in managing our roster other than the kinds of trades we'd be talking about. I would entirely rule out trades that increase our competitiveness with veteran additions, but I wouldn't purge every single veteran off of the roster either if we're looking cohesive from a developmental standpoint (though Shard is available for financial relief as a general rule; spread the word).

My favorite quote was, "We have Nick Young." As if that matters, against the super teams the NBA is creating.

I agree with your general sentiments on direction, but I'm starting to think that there's a very strong chance that there's not going to be any super teams. Nobody was more put off about the My-Hammy thing than me, but Stern really sounds like he and the owners want to push things towards further parity, even referencing the NFL.

I don't see the end results being NFL-like just due to fundamental differences in the star-effect, but if ownership wins the CBA negotiations and there's a hard cap or something similar, even Miami will either need to dump one of their kahunas or roll with only 3 starting caliber players for years. We'll see, but the super team premise is looking precarious.

[Donkey McDonkerton]

It's not in me to root for any type of loss. I want to make the plaoffs, I enjoy everything that comes with winning. All I do is WIN WIN WIN NO MATTER WHAT!

[JWizmentality]

We need to get away from that type of culture or we'll have more games like Miami no matter how much talent we have.

[Rafael122]

Win. Just because you tank doesn't guarantee you a top 3 pick. Look at 2 years ago, tanked and we ended up with the 5th pick. We actually have a decent squad are only 4 games back in the loss column in the East.

[closg00]

We should maximize developmental basketball and let the potato crisps fall where they may. If we actually win, then the value and effectiveness of our young players will increase. If we lose, then we were tanking all along and just didn't know it.

That means that I'd try to play Lewis at Small Forward even if it's not his best position because we have no one to develop there and I'd try and find a way for Seraphin to be in the rotation even if he's a bit raw. And also.....uh......there is no "and also". Other than that, there's probably not much practical difference between the two strategies as far as action steps in managing our roster other than the kinds of trades we'd be talking about. I would entirely rule out trades that increase our competitiveness with veteran additions, but I wouldn't purge every single veteran off of the roster either if we're looking cohesive from a developmental standpoint (though Shard is available for financial relief as a general rule; spread the word).

My favorite quote was, "We have Nick Young." As if that matters, against the super teams the NBA is creating.

I agree with your general sentiments on direction, but I'm starting to think that there's a very strong chance that there's not going to be any super teams. Nobody was more put off about the My-Hammy thing than me, but Stern really sounds like he and the owners want to push things towards further parity, even referencing the NFL.

I don't see the end results being NFL-like just due to fundamental differences in the star-effect, but if ownership wins the CBA negotiations and there's a hard cap or something similar, even Miami will either need to dump one of their kahunas or roll with only 3 starting caliber players for years. We'll see, but the super team premise is looking precarious.

My desire is for us to have a developmental year, Seraphin needs to be playing at-least a paltry 5 minutes a night.

Flip has too-much pride to be a tanking kind of coach. Lewis will be playing 40 minutes a night before you know it.

[fishercob]

Posted in the Arenas for Lewis thread before seeing it here. As Ruz and barely said, it's all about your definition of tanking.

As long as we're taking the long view (which organizationally, I'm confident that we are) we're fine either way. Just play the kids and build that culture. If we have a bunch of games like Miami -- where we fight our guts our but come up short -- great. If we start winning more, that's OK too, as long as it's on the backs of our developmental guys. We don't need Hinrich, Thornton, Howard and Armstrong playing huge minutes leading us to wins over the CLippers, ya know?

I can't help but root for a W every night, like Donkey. But when we lose, I'm easily able to put it in perspective and understand where we are in this process. I'm also not too caught up in ping pong balls, given what happened last year. We have good ju-ju going here -- no matter where we end up I still *feel* like we've got a good shot at a top 3 pick. And if we end up picking eighth, I feel like we'll end up with the guy who slips for no good reason (a la Paul Pierce, Steph Curry). We're going to be good. You all need to prepare yourselves.

[dobrojim]

lotta agreement with both Nate and Monte (and some comments by others) -

^ I don't see Lewis getting 40 a night barring major injuries

try to win for a while - once it's clear whether or not we're in any
kind of contention for playoffs, you can adjust playing time
accordingly.

[nate33]

Hmmm. I guess it wasn't quite as controversal of a subject as I had expected. It seems like everyone is in agreement that we should try hard to win games, but do so while developing the team.

Let's narrow the debate down a bit. I think we all agree that Wall, Young, Blatche and McGee should get pretty much all the minutes they can handle. That's a no-brainer because we don't really have any vets better than them anyhow. We can argue about how much Flip should curtail their minutes as a means of discipline, but that's more of a coaching philosophy question, not a question about long term goals. I think Flip wants to develop Blatche and McGee as much as the rest of us do, but he's going to do it his way, which may mean less total minutes for McGee in particular. I don't have a problem with that. I cede that Flip knows more than I do about developing players.

I think the dilemma gets more interesting with respect to Booker and Seraphin. Booker and Seraphin are currently not better than the guys in front of them on the depth chart (Lewis and Armstrong). To play them means that we will sacrifice wins in the short term in exchange for their individual development. Should we do this? Or should they be behind Lewis and Armstrong on the depth chart, and only get to play when situations warrant it (foul trouble, injury, matchups, a need for energy, garbage time).

The other consideration is trades. Do we look to trade our good vets (Hinrich, Howard, Thornton, Lewis, Armstrong) for youth, prospects, picks or cap room? Or do we keep them around to help foster a winning environment? In reality, we're really only talking about Hinrich and Howard. The other guys don't have any trade value.

Needless to say, getting rid of Yi would help the development of our other youngsters, while also helping us win games, so that's a no-brainer.

So there are 2 questions:

1. Do we play Booker and Seraphin in favor of the superior vets currently on the roster (Lewis and Armstrong).

2. Do we look to trade Hinrich and/or Howard for picks, prospects and/or cap relief?

[JAR69]

What Fish said. The most important piece is that organizationally we are taking the long view, to use his words. We aren't going to be a good team this year or next. That's OK. Ted's trying to build a championship, which requires building a culture. That culture does not depend on wins now. It depends on the talent brought in, their attitude, and the attitude of the front office and coaches. One of the things I like the most about the Rashard trade is that everyone from Orlando says he is driven to win, and will sacrifice getting his for that. That's the attitude and culture champions have.

[LyricalRico]

try to win for a while - once it's clear whether or not we're in any
kind of contention for playoffs, you can adjust playing time
accordingly.

What's interesting is that this team already has enough young players already in the rotation (Wall, Young, McGee, Blatche) that they would still be developing their best young talent even while trying to win. I mean, who else do you really want to play? The other guys either are-what-they-are (Armstrong, Thornton, Yi), don't project to be future starters (Booker, Hudson), or are going to take longer than a year anyway (Seraphin, Hamady). So this team in "tank mode" probably wouldn't look much different than it does now in terms of minutes.

[Induveca]

We're in tank mode regardless, just put this roster next to any other roster in the league. We're attempting to drill our way through the bottom of the barrel at this point. Potential is great, but beyond Wall IMO we seem to have the type of "potential" that's smacked up against the wall of subpar intelligence.

I don't see Blatche or McGee getting much better than this. Both of them have proven for multiple years now they are incapable of putting together consistent play. Many of their solid games are the result of favorable matchups, or a temporary grudge towards our own coach/management.

[Ruzious]

What Fish said. The most important piece is that organizationally we are taking the long view, to use his words. We aren't going to be a good team this year or next. That's OK. Ted's trying to build a championship, which requires building a culture. That culture does not depend on wins now. It depends on the talent brought in, their attitude, and the attitude of the front office and coaches. One of the things I like the most about the Rashard trade is that everyone from Orlando says he is driven to win, and will sacrifice getting his for that. That's the attitude and culture champions have.

I like it.

[dobrojim]

I wouldn't try to force things too much for Booker, perhaps
a bit more with Seraphin. That said, KS being the younger
less experienced of the 2, probably has more upward growth
potential. Booker's potential is whatever he can manage by
way of getting some shooting range. As a 4 year college player,
his pro potential for growth is going to be more limited by
both age and the fact that he's already had competitive
experience to forge his talents. So forcing minutes on KS
will be more painful in the immediate term and comes
with the possibility of damaging confidence or creating
a personality of entitlement.

[dobrojim]

ps the good thing about all this is that once one takes
the appropriate mindset into account, wins become sweeter
since we'll be underdogs most of the time.

[hands11]

Before the discussion goes awry, I think we should define what is meant by tanking. It does not mean the players or coaches try to lose games. What it does mean is that veterans are played less and more attention and PT is given to inexperienced players that you plan will be part of your future. In fact, you are trying to develop the young players. And you do not trade for veterans like Camby or Haywood or a modern day version of a 33 year old Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe. You play Seraphin in the hopes that he'll become the next Ben Wallace - rather than trade him for the next Ike Austin. All of these factors presumably lead to more short-term losing.

Well most of your tanking sounds like not making bad trades of young for old and don't do win now trades like we did for MM and Foye. We that is already not happening.

As for whole plays, well Nick is starting. At SF we don't really have any younger players but instead have Rashard, Howard and AT. PF is Dray and now some more Rashard. So I guess you would have issue with that since it may mean a few less minutes for Booker. That could happen. We will have to see the rotations look.

So I guess tank vs no tank would boil down to

Does McGee start all year ?
Will Wall start all year ?
And will Booker and Seraphin get enough minutes.

Well I think it is safe to say, Flip is going to try to win and instill a winning attitude and get every player to play smart NBA level ball. He will try to get younger players minutes and will want them to be contributing minutes. He will ask them to do a few things and do them well. Seraphin was projected as a project so he was expected to take longer. Besides, he wasn't seeing a lot of minutes this year anyway.

But what hopefully happens is we play better and get a few more comfortable leads so there is more opportunity to play some of these younger players in a winning environment were their play isn't pointless and where if they make a few mistakes, the game isn't always on the line. And a few blow out is nice where they can get some extended minutes.

A winning team provides a better environment to develop players overall. They are more open to listening and learning. They are having more fun. They are competing harder and they might get to taste the playoff environment and the run for the playoffs. They play more meaningful games since they won't be out of the race in Feb. The playoffs is a totally different level of play, they need to experience that and we need to evaluate them there.

There is such a long way to go from crap to great team, you don't want to keep putting it off. Nick, Wall, Dray, McGee, etc all need to see the playoffs to get better even if it is only a run for the playoff late into the year were games are harder and more is on the line.