I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick

[JHTruth]

Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

We have the Nets pick.

Of course. But the Lakers' pick deals nothing with Bagley, as you have suggested.

Again, I was referring to the depth of the draft. That Bagley entering knocks Porter Bamba Ayton and Doncic down a pick, meaning the Lakers pick will net us one of them, hopefully in addition to Bagley with the Nets pick.

Obviously I know the Lakers pick is protected, as I assume everyone else on this board does.

Right. I think if you can come out with Bagley or Porter with the Nets pick, and Doncic, the team is set for the next 10-15 years

[Jvalin]

Huh??

Of course I have no evidence. How could I possibly have any evidence to begin with? No one has. All we know is there are plenty of teams that have zero incentive to win their games. Regarding the Lakers, they decided to trade Lou Williams for a first rounder + salary filler (Brewer). The way I see it, that's clear indication they couldn't care less about the remainder of the season.

Besides that, players will never lose games on purpose. That's not how tanking works. The GMs are the ones who make the strategic decisions (in some cases I guess head coaches may embrase the tank as well). Players are playing for their next contract. They have no incentive whatsoever to participate in all this. The fact that the Lakers players won 5 games in a row, doesn't necessarily mean that the Lakers front office wanted the team to win in those games. Not to mention, 4 out of the 5 teams that they beat were lottery teams as well.

So let's just recap your post here:

1. You have no evidence of tanking being prevalent.
2. Any transaction that does not immediately help a team is somehow evidence of "tanking". I guess the Cs are tanking because we didn't trade the #3 pick for Paul George.
3. Tanking doesn't work well anyway because the players won't go along with it.

Alrighty then. 

Tanking has been the Boogyman of the Nets picks. I guess that will now apply to the LAL/PHI/SAC pick as well.

Yeah that's exactly what I wrote. There is absolutely no way to prove that a team is tanking games, unless a member of the team admits to it.

A couple of months ago, Mark Cuban admitted that the Mavs had done anything possible to lose games last season.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-news-tank-dan-patrick-show/94tzr8zysewk1nzfbw0q57nst

Ryan Gomes has admitted that the C's were tanking in 2007.

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different. I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

Are those examples good enough for you?

Going by your logic, tanking is rare cause no one can prove that it's not rare. Yeah, sure. Feel free to believe whatever you want mate.

It is an accurate summary of your post. And no, those examples aren't good enough. They're 10 years apart. That's neither common nor widespread.

Your insinuation is that roughly 1/3rd of the league will have great incentive to lose games somewhere around the All-Star break. Then that will cause the LAL pick to become considerably devalued. That is an accurate assessment of your point and it's refuted quite simply (and now repeatedly).

The first is unfounded speculation with more realism in a video game than it has in the real world. Players and coaches aren't paid to lose. They lose money when they do. People get fired. The locker room ramifications of accepting losing can be severe. Loss of ticket sales, goodwill with the community and business disputes with those who are buying the luxury boxes are all major consequences of tanking. It's not a simple decision and that's why it's so very uncommon. That's what made the 76er "process" so remarkably stunning - teams just don't do that kind of damage to their brand.

Then, as I've brought up repeatedly *and you've entirely failed to address) there's the limited usefulness to it. Let's use your glorious smoking gun Dallas example. Their winning percentage actually improved throughout most of the year.

End of December: .294
End of January: .375
End of February: .406
End of Season: .402

So if they "tanked" they certainly didn't do a good job, did they?   

Even in cases where tanking would be far more overt and the losses piling up (and again, these cases are hard to find), mid-to-late year tanking would likely only result in somewhere around 3 more losses than normally would be expected. This isn't enough to generally cause massive changes in draft positions.

Really don't care anymore mate. It feels like I'm trying to persuade you that I'm not an alien or something. The way I see it, tanking the rest of the season is common practise among non-playoff teams. Obviously, you have a different point of view. I respect that. Let's just agree to disagree. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

[Moranis]

Yeah this is weird, teams tank all the time after the all star break.  It is pretty common knowledge. 

The Lakers are just a bad team.  No better than 3rd worst in the west and likely only better than a couple of teams in the East.  They just aren't a good team. 

[Erik]

Rondo to pelicans over lakers and Jonathan Simmons to magic helps a bit. Good news.

[mahcus smaht]

Last year LA traded Jrue Holiday and from that point forward were the worst team in the NBA. That's unlikely to happen this year.

Especially when you consider that they need to appear as competent as possible to purse George next year.

[nickagneta]

Last year LA traded Jrue Holiday and from that point forward were the worst team in the NBA. That's unlikely to happen this year.

Especially when you consider that they need to appear as competent as possible to purse George next year.

Don't you mean Lou Williams?

[ThaPreacher]

Rondo to pelicans over lakers and Jonathan Simmons to magic helps a bit. Good news.

Lakers will lose 5-10 more games according to Hollinger's mother. (she is a Rondo fan)

[Mean Gerald Green]

Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

We have the Nets pick.

Of course. But the Lakers' pick deals nothing with Bagley, as you have suggested.

Again, I was referring to the depth of the draft. That Bagley entering knocks Porter Bamba Ayton and Doncic down a pick, meaning the Lakers pick will net us one of them, hopefully in addition to Bagley with the Nets pick.

Obviously I know the Lakers pick is protected, as I assume everyone else on this board does.

Right. I think if you can come out with Bagley or Porter with the Nets pick, and Doncic, the team is set for the next 10-15 years

A combo of Bagley and any of the other 4 would be a dream. The Celtics could be in potential dynasty territory with a young core of Brown-Tatum-Bagley-Ayton.

[Granath]

Really don't care anymore mate. It feels like I'm trying to persuade you that I'm not an alien or something. The way I see it, tanking the rest of the season is common practise among non-playoff teams. Obviously, you have a different point of view. I respect that. Let's just agree to disagree. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

You haven't even begun to persuade. You've just said the same thing repeatedly without producing hardly any evidence that supports your viewpoint. What little you've produced (LAL, DAL) was quickly debunked by the actual result of the games. So if you want to believe in conspiracy theories and widespread tanking of games, feel free but it's one of those NBA2K fantasy GM assumptions that doesn't hold true in the real world.

[droopdog7]

Really don't care anymore mate. It feels like I'm trying to persuade you that I'm not an alien or something. The way I see it, tanking the rest of the season is common practise among non-playoff teams. Obviously, you have a different point of view. I respect that. Let's just agree to disagree. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

You haven't even begun to persuade. You've just said the same thing repeatedly without producing hardly any evidence that supports your viewpoint. What little you've produced (LAL, DAL) was quickly debunked by the actual result of the games. So if you want to believe in conspiracy theories and widespread tanking of games, feel free but it's one of those NBA2K fantasy GM assumptions that doesn't hold true in the real world.

Wasnt the lottery itself, and other approaches before it, put in place because it's pretty common kowldge that teams were tanking?

[Granath]

Really don't care anymore mate. It feels like I'm trying to persuade you that I'm not an alien or something. The way I see it, tanking the rest of the season is common practise among non-playoff teams. Obviously, you have a different point of view. I respect that. Let's just agree to disagree. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

You haven't even begun to persuade. You've just said the same thing repeatedly without producing hardly any evidence that supports your viewpoint. What little you've produced (LAL, DAL) was quickly debunked by the actual result of the games. So if you want to believe in conspiracy theories and widespread tanking of games, feel free but it's one of those NBA2K fantasy GM assumptions that doesn't hold true in the real world.

Wasnt the lottery itself, and other approaches before it, put in place because it's pretty common kowldge that teams were tanking?

The current lottery system was put in place 27 years ago. How does something that happened 3 decades ago support a current assumption? That same year the Bad Boys were crowned NBA Champions. Should Danny build a team to defeat that kind of roster and approach on the court?

I find tanking to be an egregious affront to the players, fans and the game. But the lottery has largely curbed the major abuses of it. That's not to say it never happens (which I have never claimed it does not). That's why there was such consternation when Hinkie adopted his multi-year "stank and tank" approach and that's why you heard a very large rumbling from NBA front offices that they were considering other approaches if it continued. When the prize is large enough - a Duncan, an Oden/Durant, a Lebron - teams will still do it because there's an overwhelming incentive that overcomes the reasons not to do it. But the current system does act as a major deterrent because of the risk versus the (generally) minimal rewards for obviously throwing in the towel the last 1/4th of the season.

[smokeablount]

Really don't care anymore mate. It feels like I'm trying to persuade you that I'm not an alien or something. The way I see it, tanking the rest of the season is common practise among non-playoff teams. Obviously, you have a different point of view. I respect that. Let's just agree to disagree. Feel free to believe whatever you want.

You haven't even begun to persuade. You've just said the same thing repeatedly without producing hardly any evidence that supports your viewpoint. What little you've produced (LAL, DAL) was quickly debunked by the actual result of the games. So if you want to believe in conspiracy theories and widespread tanking of games, feel free but it's one of those NBA2K fantasy GM assumptions that doesn't hold true in the real world.

Wasnt the lottery itself, and other approaches before it, put in place because it's pretty common kowldge that teams were tanking?

The current lottery system was put in place 27 years ago. How does something that happened 3 decades ago support a current assumption? That same year the Bad Boys were crowned NBA Champions. Should Danny build a team to defeat that kind of roster and approach on the court?

I find tanking to be an egregious affront to the players, fans and the game. But the lottery has largely curbed the major abuses of it. That's not to say it never happens (which I have never claimed it does not). That's why there was such consternation when Hinkie adopted his multi-year "stank and tank" approach and that's why you heard a very large rumbling from NBA front offices that they were considering other approaches if it continued. When the prize is large enough - a Duncan, an Oden/Durant, a Lebron - teams will still do it because there's an overwhelming incentive that overcomes the reasons not to do it. But the current system does act as a major deterrent because of the risk versus the (generally) minimal rewards for obviously throwing in the towel the last 1/4th of the season.

Is your stance that tanking doesn't actually happen?

[Bobshot]

I remember years ago when MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn negated Charley Finley's wholesale
sell-off of his best A's players.

What Hinkie did was similar--he gave away the Sixers' best players for nothing. Which prompted his coach at the time to resign. He tried to lose by getting rid of his best players in lop-sided deals.

It used to be in sports that GMs couldn't get away with that kind of nonsense. But nowadays, anything goes.

I don't think Philly is out of the woods yet. Two of their high picks, Embiid and Simmons, have foot problems which could be chronic. There is no guarantee that Embiid won't break down if he plays "normal" NBA minutes. He was kept under wraps last year.

As to the subject of this thread, Aren't they pretty much guaranteed a high pick, as long as it isn't the overall final #1? If it isn't LA, it's the Kings, and they figure to be in the lottery.

As an aside, #1 overall is expensive. About $7M this year--which is one reason why Ainge traded it. More $ next year. That's a lot for a 19yo gamble.

[IDreamCeltics]

I remember years ago when MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn negated Charley Finley's wholesale
sell-off of his best A's players.

What Hinkie did was similar--he gave away the Sixers' best players for nothing. Which prompted his coach at the time to resign. He tried to lose by getting rid of his best players in lop-sided deals.

It used to be in sports that GMs couldn't get away with that kind of nonsense. But nowadays, anything goes.

I don't think Philly is out of the woods yet. Two of their high picks, Embiid and Simmons, have foot problems which could be chronic. There is no guarantee that Embiid won't break down if he plays "normal" NBA minutes. He was kept under wraps last year.

As to the subject of this thread, Aren't they pretty much guaranteed a high pick, as long as it isn't the overall final #1? If it isn't LA, it's the Kings, and they figure to be in the lottery.

As an aside, #1 overall is expensive. About $7M this year--which is one reason why Ainge traded it. More $ next year. That's a lot for a 19yo gamble.

If saving money was the issue he should have traded down to 27 and drafted Kyle Kuzma... He just signed with the Lakers for 4 years 8.65 million total.  He's been outperforming Tatum all summer league.

[smokeablount]

I remember years ago when MLB Commissioner Bowie Kuhn negated Charley Finley's wholesale
sell-off of his best A's players.

What Hinkie did was similar--he gave away the Sixers' best players for nothing. Which prompted his coach at the time to resign. He tried to lose by getting rid of his best players in lop-sided deals.

It used to be in sports that GMs couldn't get away with that kind of nonsense. But nowadays, anything goes.

I don't think Philly is out of the woods yet. Two of their high picks, Embiid and Simmons, have foot problems which could be chronic. There is no guarantee that Embiid won't break down if he plays "normal" NBA minutes. He was kept under wraps last year.

As to the subject of this thread, Aren't they pretty much guaranteed a high pick, as long as it isn't the overall final #1? If it isn't LA, it's the Kings, and they figure to be in the lottery.

As an aside, #1 overall is expensive. About $7M this year--which is one reason why Ainge traded it. More $ next year. That's a lot for a 19yo gamble.

If saving money was the issue he should have traded down to 27 and drafted Kyle Kuzma... He just signed with the Lakers for 4 years 8.65 million total.  He's been outperforming Tatum all summer league.

Yeah, Kuzna has been good but he's also a graduating senior being compared to 19 year olds here.