Should the Wolves tank their last 2 games?

PeeDee · Post #1 » by **PeeDee** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:50 am

What do you say? I'm torn.

I know securing the 3rd worst record guarantees more ping pong combos, but I'm also afraid of the lottery karma.

ARHHH, why couldn't they lose to MEM?!?!?!? :banghead:

digitaldropoff · Post #2 » by **digitaldropoff** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:58 am

Fight hard, play to win....no tanking.

theGreatRC · Post #3 » by **theGreatRC** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:09 am

No, we tanked before and it got us screwed. We need to at least try to win.

Post #4 » by **Klomp** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:28 am

D1SGRUNTL3D · Post #5 » by **D1SGRUNTL3D** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:32 am

andyhop · Post #6 » by **andyhop** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:58 am

No don't tank and anyway isn't 4th the most successful lottery position to get number 1 from over the last decade or so?

Post #7 » by **Worm Guts** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:24 am

theGreatRC wrote:No, we tanked before and it got us screwed. We need to at least try to win.

How has tanking ever screwed us? It's actually gained us quite a few draft spots.

shrink · Post #8 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:07 am

Bench the vets, and maybe Al. We already know all we need to know about them for next year. Give guys like Chris Richard, Kirk Snyder etc lots of minutes. I'd also like to see the young guys get more minutes, as well as the RFA's as a last chance to plead their case on getting a contract next season.

Is this tanking? I suppose some would say it is, and we obviously get better odds if these line-ups lose the last two games. However, it is also a legitimate way to get a little more info on our young talent. I'll vote "No tanking" because the guys out there aren't trying to lose, but if you define tanking as not putting out your best line-up, consider this a "Yes tanking" vote.

andyhop · Post #9 » by **andyhop** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:28 am

shrink

The trouble with your plan is that it is basically too late to have any meaning.

If Richard for instance plays 30 mins a game the next 2 against a Pistons team resting starters and a Bucks side with nothing to play for and looks great then what does it tell you?.

At this stage you are more likely to make a mistake and keep someone you shouldn't because he looked good in a couple of meaningless end of season games than you are to discover anything you didn't know already about a player.

Richard should have been given more minutes earlier in the year to see if he could contribute.Gomes,Telfair and Smith have played plenty of minutes to show what they can do, as has Snyder since he came.

The team should just play out the last couple of games as they have all the rest trying their best with their best guys on the court.

shrink · Post #10 » by **shrink** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:38 am

But what's the purpose of giving Jaric 30 minutes? We know what he can do. We know what he can't do. And we know we'll be stuck with his contract after next summer.

If the NBA is entertainment, I'd be more entertained with Kirk Snyder.

andyhop · Post #11 » by **andyhop** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:41 am

But if someone is going to get more minutes than they deserve it should be Madsen not one of the young guys as a reward for being the perfect professional.(bench sitter not basketball player)

john2jer · Post #12 » by **john2jer** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:11 pm

MADSEN, FOR THREE!

NO!

wolves_fan_82au · Post #13 » by **wolves_fan_82au** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:28 pm

john2jer wrote:MADSEN, FOR THREE!

NO!

lol ill have to try and find that game somewhere one of madsen's best :lol:

FairDinkum · Post #14 » by **FairDinkum** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:25 pm

That Madsen game was freakin hilarious!

What was he from downtown? Like 0/11 or something?

Post #15 » by **C.lupus** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:54 pm

I agree with shrink. We should bench the vets and let the pups get some burn. This would be a perfect time to take the shackles off McCants and see if he can play through early foul trouble. It wouldn't hurt to see how the young guys respond to meaningless gmes, either. Will they continue to play hard or just go through the motions. Also, because of injuries, we have had less time for the core guys to play together.

All in all, I say put the younguns out there and let them play hard and see what happens.

deeney0 · Post #16 » by **deeney0** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:24 pm

idk. I'm hoping they won't have to against Detroit, they should be good enough to beat us in Motown even if they sit Chauncey and Sheed.

collin_k41 · Post #17 » by **collin_k41** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:49 pm

I don't think we should tank. I can handle playing Al less minutes cuz he's really beat down from the whole season and i wouldn't mind testing Mccants but we still need to try and win the game. We're trying to build a winning mentality here in minnesota and what kind of example is it to go out and purposely lose games. Not a good one that's for sure.

Krapinsky · Post #18 » by **Krapinsky** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:10 pm

No. I'm not messing with the Karma police this year.

deeney0 · Post #19 » by **deeney0** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 8:13 pm

Her Hitler hairdo is making me feel ill.

TrentTuckerForever · Post #20 » by **TrentTuckerForever** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:54 pm

FairDinkum wrote:That Madsen game was freakin hilarious!

What was he from downtown? Like 0/11 or something?

0-7. Who was it that "tanked" a few games to get a favorable matchup in the NFL Playoffs? So they could play the Giants instead of Tampa, or something like that?

Point is, unless you're tanking to preserve an asset (as the Wolves were with the Madsen game... they would have had to give the pick that became Foye to the Clips if they finished too high), it never works regardless of the sport. Never tank. Never go into a game to lose on purpose... the karma gods are real and you will be punished.