TNJazz wrote:Inigo Montoya wrote:TNJazz wrote:This is the best way to "tank", competitive and fun to watch, but come up a little short.
That would be the
worst way to tank because you'll get very low odds at a high draft pick, which is what you're after if you're tanking. This may be the "fun" way to tank, but it is also the worst way to do it.
If the result is still loss, then what is the difference? Losing on purpose or officially tanking on the sly doesn't bode well for the future even with top picks because now not only are they a bad team, they have developed a losing culture. Same result, different path.
The scenario you described is one where the Jazz barely miss the playoffs, which means they get very slim odds at a high draft pick. Unless I misunderstood, and you meant the Jazz come up a little short in each game? In which case, I would agree.
Tanking is not losing on purpose. The coach still coaches to win and the players still play to win. Only the FO makes it harder on them to do so by trading players and composing a roster that isn't very competitive (but with an emphasis on player development, ideally). Realistically, players like Conley, Clarkson, Olynyk and Gay don't have a long-term future with the Jazz so you might as well move them now instead of racking up a few more wins.
As for developing a losing culture, I admit I'm having trouble understanding this argument, which is used often. Does the losing culture persist even if you replace most of the roster over a few years, like the Jazz will do? And if so, how? And does losing one season develops a losing culture that trumps decades of a winning culture, that the Jazz supposedly have?
