Prove Me Wrong: Only 2 Teams are Tanking So Far

[history]

It's hard to tell who's tanking when 80% of the teams are terrible.

[Bo Outlaw]

Bucks are tanking from what I have seen(unless they don't own there draft picks)

Tanking to me is holding out player due to "injuries" for an extended amount of time.

[sipclip]

The only blantant tanking team is Philly. It's actually very embarassing and they should be punished for intentionally not even fielding an NBA-caliber team. At least teams like the Bucks and Bobcats actually tried to add NBA-caliber players.

You are the worst kind of basketball fan. Soneone that not only lacks knowledge but follows it up with wanting to punish a team for wanting to focus on their young players. The sixers are by no means blatantly tanking and have been really competitive when MCW has been in the lineup. With him out of the lineup they are 1-10 and with him they are 8-11. As far as talent goes they have plenty of guys with talent but they are young. You want to try and punish a team for doing what is in the best interests of its basketball team and that is just stupid. In this league if you are not already an elite team or trending toward that level then the next best thing is to know what young pieces you have to build around for the future and the only way to do that is to let them play. Then you get the chance to evaluate how guys fit while at the same time maximizing the trade value of the pieces that do not. In this case we are talking about Young and possibly Turner. Young is a good player but he plays his best ball at the 4 spot but he lacks size at the 4 which limits his defensive potential. When you have a guy like Hawes at center you would prefer to have a defensive 4 to cover his weaknesses so Noel looks to be a better fit long term if they want to keep Hawes at the 5. With Turner they have a guy that wants a big contract and may not be the best fit next to Williams long term since he is at his best with the ball in his hands and is a weak 3pt shooter. They also have a guy in Wroten off the bench with a somewhat similar skillset that can replace his versatility if they choose to move him.

If you actually spent some time watching the sixers you would see a team that has a decent amount of young talent and is quite competitive when MCW is in the lineup.

[j_angel]

Boston are not tanking. We got out and be competitive every game, we havnt been blown out often (Indiana did beat us by 30 odd but they are very very good).

Boston are 13-17 and Toronto (4th seed & top of division) are 13-15, I think we can make that up when Rondo returns.

[DusterBuster]

Boston are not tanking. We got out and be competitive every game, we havnt been blown out often (Indiana did beat us by 30 odd but they are very very good).

Boston are 13-17 and Toronto (4th seed & top of division) are 13-15, I think we can make that up when Rondo returns.

The team itself isn't tanking, but Danny Ainge clearly built that team with tanking in mind. You can't seriously look at the roster he assembled before the season started and thought, 'Yep, that's a playoff team'. If you did, I got a quarter to sell you for only a dollar fifty.

Also, don't use "top of division" like it's some accomplishment. When you're 4 games under .500 and almost leading your division, that's an embarrassment. The only reason they're in the playoff hunt right now is because the East sucks and the Atlantic is one of the saddest excuses we've seen for a division in at least a decade.

I give the Celtics players and coaches credit for not just rolling over on the season from Day 1, they have been better than expected, but Ainge clearly never constructed that to be a good team.

[Thugger HBC]

Tanking to me is putting your team in a position to lose, cant truly think of too many teams that fit this definition....the Bucks yes, as they didnt improve their situation at all and solely was the helper to make everyone else improve.

The Magic arent tanking imo, they made a big trade, and are building a nice core there, certainly arent trying to lose....too talented to do so.

Boston definitely was tanking, hiring of Stevens offsets it some as he's a good coach, but the pieces and picks they have are definitely in the rebuild mold....they shouldnt be winning with that talent right now.

Philly shouldnt be tanking imo, but really dumb decisions forced them in, they essentially "cheddar bob'ed themselves....never should have entered into the Dwight trade situation, could have had kept their nice core of pieces given up in that deal. Also should have kept Jrue, even though MCW is a good piece, dont know if Noel will be as billed.

I think the Raptors intended to, but saw some winning and now wanna cash in on that.

Some teams have tanked just by going in different directions from what they were the previous year....most notably Knicks and Nets.

Knicks decided leadership, true vet experience and IQ werent required and was essentially overrated, so they decided not to replace any of it, and staunchly refused to address the weakest roster areas (pg, center depth), and opted for adding what they didnt need...more inefficient scoring.

Nets went literally all-in...house, bank account, car and clothes on a powerball ticket....they odds were stacked that it wasnt gonna work and the window was literally just one year....boom number NOT pulled, now have nothing.

[LakerLegend]

The tanking is reflected in how the roster is constructed, not in how the roster is used.

If you think half the East was actually trying to build competitive teams they would literally have to be ran by chimps to come out with the rosters they have this year.

[Seasontickets]

Yeah I would say only Philly threw the season away. I mean they intentionally traded away their best young player (Jrue Holiday) for a pick and a player that wasn't going to play until next year.

[snoopdogg88]

I have to laugh when people get all uppity and act like the Sixers are tanking and should be punished or whatever.

Was that their intention going into the season? Absolutely. Is that how the season has progressed thus far? To a certain extent.

Brett Brown is an excellent coach and has had them playing very competitively and very hard on a nightly basis. Most of our losses are from when MCW was out for 10 games with an injury. Otherwise we've beaten the Heat, Rockets, Bulls w/Rose.
They are just your typical bad/untalented team.


I was much much more disgusted with last years squad and the weekly Bynum scam/fraud that was the 2012-13 Sixers. I actually enjoy the hell out of watching this years team

[nomansland]

Teams ought to be able to tank if they want. By doing so they're betting a season on poor odds of landing the #1 pick.

Meanwhile they can let their young players get a shot at improving through lots of minutes- which is usually what "tanking" effectively is. Instead of trying to sign journeymen they go with younger players knowing that they're going to win fewer games that year, but in the long run they have a better shot at putting out a good team.

Fans are free to express their opinion of this practice in the form of ticket sales, tv ratings, and merchandise sales.

The whole "problem" of tanking is totally blown out of proportion.

[Tiesto_Lakers]

If the Lakers trade Gasol for Bynum (and then waive Bynum), you can add them to that list.

[DusterBuster]

Tanking to me is putting your team in a position to lose, cant truly think of too many teams that fit this definition....the Bucks yes, as they didnt improve their situation at all and solely was the helper to make everyone else improve.

The Bucks? They clearly didn't try to tank this year. The Bucks did what the Bucks always do, went out and tried to be a 6-8 seed. If you look at the roster moves they made, those weren't tanking moving. Signing OJ Mayo and Zaza Pachuila to big money deals isn't something you do to suck. When you're trying to tank, you do what teams like Utah, Philly, Boston and Atlanta did. You shuffle off any big/long term contracts for expirings and whatever rebuilding assets you can get, then fill your roster with rookie scale or veteran min guys and any signings you do make beyond vet min guys are for one year guaranteed at most. None of that description fits what the Bucks did.

You could say, "But they let Ellis walk." While true, they also replaced him with a veteran in Mayo who they didn't suspect would be much of a downgrade, especially considering Ellis was horrific with Milwaukee. That's not a move a tanking team does.

Then you could say, "What about trading Jennings?" Again, true, but it was absolutely clear bridges had been burnt between both parties there. Jennings didn't want to spend another minute in a Bucks uniform and the Bucks had no problem accommodating that wish. So that trade wasn't a move to get worse, they got a young guy they hoped could flourish with them in Knight AND traded for solid veteran in Luke Ridnour, that was simply a trade to get rid of a guy who had become a bit of a cancer in the lockerroom.

The Bucks being terrible this year has nothing to do with the team being designed to tank by their GM and owner. Their crappiness is due to injuries and simply having a lot of parts that don't fit together.

The Magic arent tanking imo, they made a big trade, and are building a nice core there, certainly arent trying to lose....too talented to do so.

The Magic aren't explicitly tanking any more than they were tanking last year. Their hand was forced by Howard to go young, so that's what they did and they stayed the course this summer. They aren't so much as tanking as they are just letting the chips fall where they may.

Boston definitely was tanking, hiring of Stevens offsets it some as he's a good coach, but the pieces and picks they have are definitely in the rebuild mold....they shouldnt be winning with that talent right now.

Stevens was a total unknown. Highly respected, but you never know if a college coach is going to translate to the NBA. He was going to get a pass on this season even if he wasn't as good as he ended up being. Agreed though, as I said in my other post, Danny Ainge CLEARLY put the Celtics in a position to fail, but to the players credit, they're trying to fight through and have gotten a few more wins than the talent says they deserve.

Philly shouldnt be tanking imo, but really dumb decisions forced them in, they essentially "cheddar bob'ed themselves....never should have entered into the Dwight trade situation, could have had kept their nice core of pieces given up in that deal. Also should have kept Jrue, even though MCW is a good piece, dont know if Noel will be as billed.

Yeah, I'm not sure yet if they've made the right decision to tank yet either. We'll have to wait and see what the draft holds for them. Jrue was good, but they didn't have a ton of options in putting other guys around him, so I don't fault them for doing what they did. Making the Iggy trade was a terrible terrible move, but one that can be blamed on the old GM, not the current one. Hinkie was put in a tough spot with Philly and just decided he wanted to make his own team. Can't really fault him for that.

I think the Raptors intended to, but saw some winning and now wanna cash in on that.

The Raptors don't really have a direction at this point. Nor do I think they ever set out to tank before the season. Uriji had still been evaluating the roster and has only just started to clean up the mess Colangelo left him with. I think they're a lot like the Magic, they don't really care where the chips fall for this year. If they win that pathetic Atlantic Division, fine, if they get a lottery pick, that's fine too.

Knicks decided leadership, true vet experience and IQ werent required and was essentially overrated, so they decided not to replace any of it, and staunchly refused to address the weakest roster areas (pg, center depth), and opted for adding what they didnt need...more inefficient scoring.

Nets went literally all-in...house, bank account, car and clothes on a powerball ticket....they odds were stacked that it wasnt gonna work and the window was literally just one year....boom number NOT pulled, now have nothing.[/quote]

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

[DusterBuster]

I have to laugh when people get all uppity and act like the Sixers are tanking and should be punished or whatever.

Was that their intention going into the season? Absolutely. Is that how the season has progressed thus far? To a certain extent.

Brett Brown is an excellent coach and has had them playing very competitively and very hard on a nightly basis. Most of our losses are from when MCW was out for 10 games with an injury. Otherwise we've beaten the Heat, Rockets, Bulls w/Rose.
They are just your typical bad/untalented team.


I was much much more disgusted with last years squad and the weekly Bynum scam/fraud that was the 2012-13 Sixers. I actually enjoy the hell out of watching this years team

I certainly hold nothing against the Sixers for tanking. They wanted to go in a different direction and had the balls to do it, so kudos to them.

That said, even with a team that's tanking, you don't want to go into a tank with a bare cupboard. You want to start building a foundation while losing. Having a good head coach is a easy way to start that foundation. Brown in Philly and Stevens in Boston is a great example of that. Then you also want to have at least one or two players you can keep beyond the tanking season. The Sixers found MCW (book's still out on Noel), the Celtics have Sullinger and the Jazz had Kanter/Haywood/Favors. All young guys with nice amounts of potential, but still raw enough not to get you a ton of wins.

[Thugger HBC]

Tanking to me is putting your team in a position to lose, cant truly think of too many teams that fit this definition....the Bucks yes, as they didnt improve their situation at all and solely was the helper to make everyone else improve.

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

[DusterBuster]

Tanking to me is putting your team in a position to lose, cant truly think of too many teams that fit this definition....the Bucks yes, as they didnt improve their situation at all and solely was the helper to make everyone else improve.

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

We don't agree because those moves weren't made to make them intentionally bad. They were trying to be good and failed. That's sucking, not tanking. Tanking is where you, as a GM, intentionally put your team in a position to fail. The Nets, Bucks and Knicks CLEARLY did not do that.

[Thugger HBC]

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

We don't agree because those moves weren't made to make them intentionally bad. They were trying to be good and failed. That's sucking, not tanking. Tanking is where you, as a GM, intentionally put your team in a position to fail. The Nets, Bucks and Knicks CLEARLY did not do that.

Both GM's did do that, one lost his job for it and the other should as well.

The Bucks did as well one good year from OJ doesnt sell anything.

[celticfan42487]

Tanking to me is putting your team in a position to lose, cant truly think of too many teams that fit this definition....the Bucks yes, as they didnt improve their situation at all and solely was the helper to make everyone else improve.

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

No, you can't. Tanking involves intentionally trying to lose.

Rondo being held out 2 months longer then necessary on a team with no PG. That's trying to lose.

The Nets trading 5 first rounders away for 3 players who are former all stars and one former MVP and failing. That's not tanking, that's just bad luck.

[DusterBuster]

We don't agree because those moves weren't made to make them intentionally bad. They were trying to be good and failed. That's sucking, not tanking. Tanking is where you, as a GM, intentionally put your team in a position to fail. The Nets, Bucks and Knicks CLEARLY did not do that.

Both GM's did do that, one lost his job for it and the other should as well.

The Bucks did as well one good year from OJ doesnt sell anything.

You seem to be looking at these situations without any form of context or hindsight. Either that or you can't differentiate the difference between a team sucking and a team tanking, which imo, are two very different things. As far as I can tell, your bottom line is 'bad=tanking'. I don't see it that black and white.

The Bucks, Nets and Knicks aren't tanking, nor were they set out to be tanking teams before the season started. They're just really crappy teams for a variety of reasons. Sometimes you put a roster together that you think makes sense on paper, but then it just doesn't work out for one reason or another.

That's a very VERY different think from stripping a roster to bare bones and giving a bunch of young unproven guys huge minutes. That's intentionally tanking as a GM. The Jazz, Celtics, Suns and Sixers all set out to be tanking teams. Whether or not the expected outcome of a ton of losses transpired is something wholly different. Just as it is that it's very different when a team expects a lot of wins but they end up not getting them.

Now you may say, "Well what about a team that starts out the season wanting to win, but then decides to throw in the towel on a season?" This is certainly a common occurrence. I think you can soon add a couple teams to that list; Lakers, Bulls and Cavs are all candidates for that. One or more of them will start tanking soon I'd think. Sometimes seasons go sideways on you and the best option is just to throw it out.

On the flip side of that coin, sometimes you end up having a great season like the Suns and what you thought was going to be a tanking year turns into a playoff season.

[Thugger HBC]

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

No, you can't. Tanking involves intentionally trying to lose.

Rondo being held out 2 months longer then necessary on a team with no PG. That's trying to lose.

The Nets trading 5 first rounders away for 3 players who are former all stars and one former MVP and failing. That's not tanking, that's just bad luck.

Building teams with a potential to fail immensely is tanking, whether that was the goal or not.

[DusterBuster]

These teams aren't tanking, they just suck. There's a distinct difference between sucking and tanking. If you're trying and still not winning, you suck. The Nets, Knicks and Bucks all just suck. Those are teams that are trying to win games and for a number of reasons aren't. Those teams were put in position to win games and be a playoff contender before the season started, but then got derailed for a variety of reasons. The Nets and Knicks in particular have no good reason to tank considering neither team has their 1st pick this year.

Yes, they do suck, and thats exactly what tanking team do...the essentially excel at it.

Tanking is something totally different. A team that is tanking is a team where management put them in a position to fail. The Jazz did that, the Celtics did that and the Sixers did that, all quite blatantly I might add. The Jazz let every veteran they had walk for nothing in FA. The Celtics traded the cornerstones of their franchise for future assets and useless contract fodder. The Sixers traded their best young player for a future pick and a player they knew would miss a majority of the season.

Seems by definition you agree more than you admit as we have pretty much the same definition.

Nets, Knicks and Bucks, fit it perfectly....they all suck by self inflicted moves that whether intentionally or not had a design to make them worse.

You can definitely tank with out planning to do so, all three accomplished it masterfully.

No, you can't. Tanking involves intentionally trying to lose.

Rondo being held out 2 months longer then necessary on a team with no PG. That's trying to lose.

The Nets trading 5 first rounders away for 3 players who are former all stars and one former MVP and failing. That's not tanking, that's just bad luck.

Exactly the point I've been trying to get at. Being a crappy team does not always blindly equal tanking. They may have the same outcome, but they're two very different circumstances.