Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"

[BballTim]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?

what countless teams are those?  Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.

  Start listing teams that spent multiple years in the lottery without building a contender or left the lottery for a few years (without contending) and went back into the lottery and you'll end up with a rather long list.

[D.o.s.]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

  Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.

I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.

  I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.

Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.

[Kuberski33]

Larry Bird came into the league and took a 20 win team to 60.  Magic did pretty much the same with the Lakers.  I can't ink of a lot of other players who had that kind of impact turning a team around so quickly.  Point being it takes more than getting lucky once.

Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to win a title without a top 5 player on the roster...so the temptation to tank will always be there for the bottom teams.

[BballTim]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

  Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.

I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.

  I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.

Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.

  As someone who's followed the league for quite some time, hearing words like that about the Warriors is almost as surprising as hearing (some of) them about the Clips.

[D.o.s.]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

  Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.

I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.

  I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.

Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.

  As someone who's followed the league for quite some time, hearing words like that about the Warriors is almost as surprising as hearing (some of) them about the Clips.

Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.

[Interceptor]

Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.

I thought that it was a reference to the OKC ownership being too cheap to pay Harden.

[D.o.s.]

Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.

I thought that it was a reference to the OKC ownership being too cheap to pay Harden.

It can't be both?

Clay Bennett's a scumbag for a whole host of reasons.

[celtic -_- pride]

I think the title says it all

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/mannix-on-toucher-rich-if-tanking-worked-the-bobcats-would-be-best-team-in-basketball/

You need competent management to get the job done. I remember some pretty awful signings/trades for them. Tyrus Thomas for instance.

[kozlodoev]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?

what countless teams are those?  Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.

The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.

[LarBrd33]

The term "tanking" is misunderstood.  "Bottoming out" is more appropriate.  The Celtics alone have multiple instances of proof dating back to the 1960s that "bottoming out" works.  Gains you a shot at franchise players or major assets.   

Also the premise is crap, because the Bobcats haven't bottomed out in a transcendent draft. 

2004 - They take Okafor 2nd.  Dwight went first.  That wasn't an exceptional draft.  Devin Harris, Shaun Livingston and Ben Gordon rounded out the top 5.

2005 - They take Ray Felton 5th.  Bummer... Chris Paul and Deron Williams were taken right before that.  There wasn't 5 stars projected in that draft... the next pick was Martell Webster.

2006 -  They take Adam Morrison 3rd.  One pick after LaMarcus Aldridge and one pick before Ty Thomas.  That draft was crap.  Ainge had the #7 pick and traded it for Sebastian Telfair.  Garbage draft was garbage.

2007 -  They weren't in the top 5.  They picked 8th and took Brandon Wright.  Top 5 was Oden, Durant, Al Horford, Mike Conley and Jeff Green.   It was thought to be a 2 player draft.  Picking 8th in a 2 player draft isn't ideal.

2008 -   They picked 9th.  Doesn't qualify.  Superstars usually fit in the top 5.  THis year Derrick Rose, Russell WEstbrook, Kevin Love, OJ Mayo and Michael Beasley made up the Top 5.  3 of those guys are superstars.  Pretty good draft... Brook Lopez was taken one pick later at 10th.


2009 - They pick 12th.  Once again doesn't qualify.  That's "perpetual mediocrity" territory.  Blake Griffin, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio and Hasheem Thabeet made the top 5.  Steph Curry went 7th (many felt he should have went higher).  Pretty good draft.


2010 - No pick?  John Wall, Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson and DeMarcus Cousins made up the top 5.  Not bad.  Greg Monroe and Paul George made up the top 10.   Bobcats picked a bad year to have no draft pick.


2011 - They picked 9th in a meh draft.  Once again doesn't qualify.  Kind of a crap draft.  Kyrie Irving went 1st.  Whole bunch of "bleh" after Kyrie.


2012 - Tough to judge this draft yet.   They picked 2nd. MKG is only 20 years old.  For a 20 year old, he's playing pretty [dang] well so far.  That one might pan out. 

2013 - Widely known this was a garbage draft.  They picked 4th.  Best player supposedly was Nerlens Noel and they passed on him.


...

"Bottoming out" every year isn't a wise move.  There are certain seasons where "bottoming out" makes sense though.  The Bobcats didn't exist back in 2003 when LeBron, Melo, Bosh and Wade all were in the top 5.  This year, there's at least 3 guys who should end up superstar franchise players (Wiggins, Parker, Randle) as well as 4-5 other guys who (barring injury) are expected to make all-star teams down the line.   Scouts and experts say if you have a Top 7 pick in this draft... you're likely going to draft a franchise cornerstone.   Listen to Chad Ford talk about it:  http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/63972/chad-ford-this-draft-worth-tanking-for

Ironically, the Bobcats don't plan on bottoming out the one year that bottoming out seems to make the most sense.  You don't bottom out for the 2013 draft... you bottom out for the 2014 draft.   Ainge, to his credit, obviously understands that... otherwise he wouldn't have waited until this offseason to ship out KG and Pierce for future considerations.

[playdream]

It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.

He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.

What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?

what countless teams are those?  Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.

The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.

it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year

[kozlodoev]

The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.

it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year

I'm sure that's precisely why the Wizards picked Kwame Brown over Pau Gasol and Tyson Chandler, why the Bucks picked Bogut over Deron Williams and Chris Paul, and why the Raptors went with Bargnani instead of Aldridge, Roy or Gay.

The draft is a crap shoot. There are better ways to rebuild a franchise, mostly because there are always other managers willing to shoot the craps.

[LooseCannon]

People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs".

[erisred]

It pretty much worked for the '06-'07 Celtics, too.

I think multiple seasons of tanking and poor management is the losing strategy. One season in the tank with a solid plan, that's another thing entirely.

Yeah, any kind of tank or rebuild or whatever the term is now requires contingency plans.  One lottery draw led Danny to likely switch from "trade Pierce and build around Al, Rondo, and Oden/Durant" to "cash in assets to snap up stars from teams that are looking to bottom out themselves." 

Did the "tank" fail?  It would've if we had no Plan B beyond "Top-2 or bust", but instead, we switched tacks and it led directly to 5-6 seasons of elite contention.

And to make that work Danny made sure he had the assets on hand.

I really do think "a dip into the lottery" this year is plan A. Not bottom of the bucket, but competing for a playoff spot until late in the season when the "rookies hit the wall" and the team fades to somewhere around a 10th pick.

If, otoh, the team doesn't fade and makes the playoffs, I think Danny would see that as a good thing...bitter sweet, but good. The rookies developed better/faster than he expected, assets gained value, so move to plan B. Start looking to package assets, TE, expirings for "the next impact player."

If, on the third hand, the team falls off early and even Rondo coming back doesn't help, then maybe by February he moves to plan C and the ship heads for the bottom...and a shot at a top 5 pick.

It's like The Gambler said, "You got to know when to hold'em, when to fold'em, when to walk away and when to run."

[action781]

it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year

The last "once in a decade draft" was 2003.  There were three supposed franchise-changers in that draft.  The three franchises that got those players were Cleveland, Detroit (via Memphis), and Denver.  Among those teams, only 1 championship has been won since then and it had absolute nothing to do with Darko.

The only other instance of a draft with franchise-changing players like that available and worth tanking for was 2007 with Oden and Durant.  No championships yet from either of those franchises.  OKC is certainly in good shape, but they've had a lot of good drafting, development, and management aside from simply landing Durant.

The other franchise-changing players available (very hard to justify tanking when only one stud is to be taken) in the last 13 years that I can recall, were Yao and Rose.  No championships yet from either of those franchises.