Author Topic: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"  (Read 16553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2013, 06:16:45 PM »

Offline cman88

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2752
  • Tommy Points: 196
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true.  You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.

Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.

exactly, but at this team is currently constituted I dont think we have any "elite prospects"

i'm fine being "mediocre" next year if we can land an elite prospect in this years draft and grow with Rondo, sullinger, olynyk, bradley etc.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2013, 07:04:18 PM »

Offline pokeKingCurtis

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Tommy Points: 98
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..

We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle

Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and  that's a really good young team.

The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst

This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true.  You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.

Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.

exactly, but at this team is currently constituted I dont think we have any "elite prospects"

i'm fine being "mediocre" next year if we can land an elite prospect in this years draft and grow with Rondo, sullinger, olynyk, bradley etc.

Quote
mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year

We fall under this category.

G-Wallace, Bogans and Humphries becoming expirings.

Not to mention plenty of assets, like Houston right before Harden.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2013, 07:26:53 PM »

Offline cltc5

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1713
  • Tommy Points: 116
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar.  Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker.  Tank with style

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2013, 08:11:13 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8395
  • Tommy Points: 846
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar.  Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker.  Tank with style

"Daffed" is a nice word. 

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2013, 08:17:33 PM »

Offline Snakehead

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3733
  • Tommy Points: 200
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar.  Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker.  Tank with style

Were you not here in 07-08?

That collection of players is not, overall, better than what we have now.  Al Jefferson was a very promising centerpiece, but right now we have a better collection of young players for sure.

Plus we have multiple picks we can include in a trade.


"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2013, 08:23:33 PM »

Online hpantazo

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10602
  • Tommy Points: 895
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar.  Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker.  Tank with style

Were you not here in 07-08?

That collection of players is not, overall, better than what we have now.  Al Jefferson was a very promising centerpiece, but right now we have a better collection of young players for sure.

Plus we have multiple picks we can include in a trade.

Agreed. Our collection of assets now is much better than it was in 2007. Ainge put us in an excellent position with the Doc, KG, and Pierce trades.

2007 assets: Al Jefferson, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, #5 pick in the draft

result: KG and Ray Allen

kept best player in Pierce, and promising rookie in Rondo

2013 assets: Jared Sullinger, Kelly Olynyk, Avery Bradley, Jordan Crawford, Jeff Green, Humphries expiring contract, 10 million dollar trade exception, 2 1st round picks in this draft, and many 1st round picks in the upcoming drafts.

we should be able to at least match the result from 2007 if not surpass it

keep best player in Rondo, and promising young player in one of Sullinger or Olynyk

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2013, 08:34:11 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8816
  • Tommy Points: 628
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.

Uh?

The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.

The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.

Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????

The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title.  It's 2013 now -- and it's late!

The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79.  Great team.  Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.

Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?

So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?

Feel free to read the rest of the conversation (or at least my posts) on the first and second pages.
And when I'm rich and meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some golf and shoot some dope

Quote
Can't read the entire thread but cone people.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2013, 09:36:26 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38537
  • Tommy Points: 1943
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

Uh?

The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.

The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.

Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????

The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title.  It's 2013 now -- and it's late!

The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79.  Great team.  Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.

Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?

So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?

Feel free to read the rest of the conversation (or at least my posts) on the first and second pages.

Yeah I don't think 'did they win a title' is an accurate representation of success, at least taken in and of its self.

Tanking absolutely worked for the 03 Cavs, they got a guy who took the worst Finals team this side of AI's and got them there. That is success. Mismanagement kept them from a title, but consistent top 3 finishes in regular season records is a pretty good marker.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2013, 10:03:45 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38537
  • Tommy Points: 1943
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Quote
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?

I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.

1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?

2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2013, 10:43:12 PM »

Offline freshinthehouse

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1209
  • Tommy Points: 97
I think one key to tanking is choosing the proper time to do it.  And in my humble opinion, this is the perfect time to do it.  This draft is full of high end talent, and the 2015 draft is shaping up to be very good as well.  If we give Danny Ainge two lotto picks in the next two years and a ton of cap space, we should be on the rise by the 15-16 season. All we need is a little patience (no Axl).

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2013, 11:21:55 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1395
  • Tommy Points: 209
Quote
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?

I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.

1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?

2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.

You assert that my strategy is flawed because of (1) "uncertainty" (in what may or may not be available in the trade market) and yet want to gamble on (2) the uncertainties of the draft lottery?

First off, on (1) ultimately, that is the job of GMs to both obfuscate about their own players and to know about such information on other team's players.  Don't confuse what little we layman know about who is available with what Danny may know.  Further, if there is no opportunity right now, there will be at some point within the next year or two (long before it normally takes to build to title contention through the draft) because turnover and transition is part of the NBA.  Finally, upon the availability of a deal, the decision to act on it is far more deterministic than relying on the lottery.  The players involved will have been vetted and not potential draft busts. 

On (2) the only way to guarantee a 'high level' draft pick is to have one of the absolute worst records.   What is your criteria for a 'high level' draft pick? 

Top 10?  Then you MUST have at least the 7th worst record because otherwise you may end up outside the top 10.   

Top 5?  Similarly, the only way to guarantee you get a top 5 pick is to have one of the TWO worst records.

Let me ask you:  Given what you have seen of this team, sitting here with it's 4-5 record after 9 games, do you think this could end up with one of the TWO worst records?

Do you think it will end up with one of the 7th worst?

Suppose you answer "yes" to the latter.   Let's say we tank and end up with the 7th worst record.

With the 7th worst record, you still have a chance of picking as low as 10th.

Last year, we ended up with the 13 pick (by way of trade).   

And we didn't tank.  We made the playoffs.  We didn't last long.  But the team got to realize the big bump in revenues associated with playing playoff games.   And still ended up with a pretty good pick.

How much is the difference between a 10th and 13th pick worth?  Is it worth giving up a shot at the playoffs (and the revenues)?

And I didn't even touch the 'uncertainty' involved with whether a player, once picked, will be a success or not.


A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it.  What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

This tells us that the way most title teams have been built is by _acquiring_ that 'top 3' talent later (via trade or FA), well after he was drafted by some other team.   By then, you know who he is.  He is not a ping pong ball.  He has proven whether he can play in the NBA.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2013, 11:28:55 PM by mmmmm »
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2013, 11:45:11 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38537
  • Tommy Points: 1943
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I think you misunderstood me. Here's my argument for staying the course (which is a form of tanking, and yes I do think we're bad enough for a worst 5 record, potentially worst 3. Potentially worst overall):

My assumptions:

1) Currently there is no mid-season trade that will elevate us into contention.

2) A high pick in the draft next year potentially has immense value, whether kept or dealt (more on this later)

3) The current roster, even with some strategic small moves, has a relatively low ceiling to the presumed top 16 teams in the league. At best I have trouble seeing us make the playoffs. At worst, very , very bad.

So the argument:

Staying the course (making small moves, or none, playing younger players over vets, being cautious with Rondo's return) has multiple benefits. If there is a homerun swing to be made via trade, we should have a top-10 pick to bargain with. In this draft, when nobody is dealing a top-10 pick, it will be a highly coveted asset. Logically it could only happen post-season.

However, if we end up with a top 5 pick , we have a opportunity to gain a long-term cornerstone, a piece we currently do not have outside of Rondo, who has looked , especially in the regular season , like a piece best player as a supporting player, not a headliner. The team lacks top end talent and top end prospects. We need both or either.

Gaining either is most easily attained by having the trade chip or asset of a top pick.

So whether Danny wants to rapid rebuild around Rondo, or long-term rebuild over multiple seasons, he's still best served by not being very good this year.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #72 on: November 15, 2013, 12:10:17 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38537
  • Tommy Points: 1943
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Quote
Last year, we ended up with the 13 pick (by way of trade).   

And we didn't tank.  We made the playoffs.  We didn't last long.  But the team got to realize the big bump in revenues associated with playing playoff games.   And still ended up with a pretty good pick.

Also, this point makes implications that I really don't think are valid here. We got the 13th pick in what has been called one of the weakest drafts in a decade. And we traded up from what, 15th? 16th?

Trading from 7th to 4th is much more costly, 5th to 2nd or 3rd a kings ransom in a draft like this compared to what we paid for Olynyk. Last year, CLE couldn't acquire Aldridge for the 1st overall pick. That's how weak the draft was seen to be.

DKC Portland Trailblazers Team Card
Questions about the DKC? Ask here: LINK
Free Agency Tracker: Link

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #73 on: November 15, 2013, 12:32:13 AM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2606
  • Tommy Points: 401
Quote
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?

I have a better idea.   How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?

I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.

1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?

2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.

A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.

This tells us that the way most title teams have been built is by _acquiring_ that 'top 3' talent later (via trade or FA), well after he was drafted by some other team
.   By then, you know who he is.  He is not a ping pong ball.  He has proven whether he can play in the NBA.

Where are you getting this?

Since the start of the Bird/Magic era, something like 70% (24 of 34) of championships have been won by top 3 players on the teams that drafted them. Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem and Duncan account for 20 of them by my count.

This doesn't even count the Lakers as having drafted Kobe. (Though, the Lakers certainly didn't acquire him "well after he was drafted by some other team.")

If you count Kobe as home-grown, 6 of the last 9 rings have been won by teams that drafted their best player.

Re: Great Article by Chris Mannix on "Tanking"
« Reply #74 on: November 15, 2013, 12:51:52 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8816
  • Tommy Points: 628
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.

...but not Darko!
And when I'm rich and meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some golf and shoot some dope

Quote
Can't read the entire thread but cone people.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog