Teletopez Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Say hypothetically, your team wins, oh I don't know, 12 games in a season. If you found out that they tanked, would you ... approve of what they did because 1) they aren't as bad as their record shows, 2) they focused on player development and the future, and 3) they have a 25% chance at first pick in the lottery? OR disapprove of what they did because 1) fans paid for tickets, expecting that they would put their best effort forth in picking up wins, 2) their attempt at getting first pick could fail, 3) it's tough to rebound from an ugly season mentally, and 4) FA's tend to base your future chances of winning on previous records? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I don't support tanking because it requires your best players to take their mind out of the game, for the coaches to encourage losing, and for those players to actually accept those losses. Play to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Coming from a fan of a team who did this 3 years ago, I don't think its a great idea. We got lucky this offseason, simple as that. We tanked and ended up picking second, got a guy with more talent than 90% of the players in this league but just happened to be ridiculously raw and immature. Didn't work next to Wade and we were average. You're essentially putting all your eggs in one basket and hoping the kid pans out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Penny Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 i would be seriously pissed off with the team... i hate tanking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newman Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 "I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying." - Michael Jordan Think this summarises my opinion regarding tanking pretty well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check my Stats Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I support tanking through the GM, you trade players who aren't in the long term plans that will win more games for you. You don't encourage losing, but at the same time I don't want you to make acquisitions to try and win more. You are better off in the NBA winning 20 games than 30, if you aren't drafting in the top 5 you'll be lucky if the player you draft is a starter 5 years down the road. You win in the NBA by getting superstars, the only way to (typically) do this is to get a top 3 pick, and to do that, you have to lose a lot. I would rather my team tank and win 15 games than win 35 games, there are far more positives in winning 15 than 35. So I guess you could say I support tanking as long as the best players are still playing, if you want to lose more, trade your top players (unless they are long term pieces to the puzzle of course). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guru Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Okay, I'm not going to beat around the bush here .. I support the Nets tanking last year. The potential upside, out weighs the effects of tanking in my opinion. Since most of our players were expiring, we have a new coach, and a new owner, our tanking made sense. The losing spirit should not linger around this season because well.. there are only 4 people on the current team that were there last year. If we didn't tank where would we be right now? In the same place we are at right now. Tanking while rebuilding doesn't make sense but tanking when you plan on blowing your whole team up and starting from scratch does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 (edited) ^I agree with your point (travesy3)... one of those rare times. At the end of the day, you want to see your team win it all. That should be the ONLY reason why you cheer for your team. You don't cheer for your team because they win 60 regular season games and be blasted in playoffs anyway. You support them through good and bad times because you have that FAITH in your team that SOMEDAY they will win a championship... unless you're happy to see your team make the playoffs and be defeated in First or Second Round. The objective for your team is to win the championship. If your team is always in the middle of the pack, too good to land a top 3 pick, good enough to make playoffs, but still too bad to get out of First Round... there's no reason to be content with what's going on. Sometimes, people "try to be positive" and condemn tanking, but they forget the big picture. They forget why they're in this. I'm not for the spirit of tanking but to get the result sometimes you have to be willing to take a short-term hit for long-term gain. Take a step backward to take 2-3 steps forward. Take the Hawks for example. Everyone knows they're gonna be the same team, and they can't beat the Celtics/ Heat/ Magic. If there's a can't-miss difference-maker talent in the next draft, e.g. Tim Duncan back in 1997, they should consider tanking because if they do, at least they position themselves to grab that talent. Obviously, tanking is no guarantee to land top pick, but if you at least give yourself a chance to make it happen, it's better than nothing. If they don't tank, they're not gonna be in lottery, make the playoffs, and return the a similar roster for the next 3-4 years with similar result, getting ousted in the second round. On the other hand, if they strike luck (because they position themselves to receive it) then the talented rookie might be the difference maker they need to get over the hump. Would you suck for 1 year and have a chance to be special the following season or would you be "pretty good" for the next 4 years but don't win a championship anyway/ come close to it? I'd rather choose the former. The Spurs (supposedly one of the "classiest" organizations in ALL pro sports, if not the classiest) would have done the tank job all over again, it won them Tim Duncan and 4 championships. Edited October 11, 2010 by Multi-Billionaire 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I'd rather tank and get some real good players to build around then play at mediocre level and stay there for years and years. In the end, its all about the ring...if you dont have a good shot, might as well get some very bright prospects.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The losing spirit should not linger around this season because well.. there are only 4 people on the current team that were there last year. If we didn't tank where would we be right now? In the same place we are at right now. Tanking while rebuilding doesn't make sense but tanking when you plan on blowing your whole team up and starting from scratch does. If there's a dangerous effect of tanking, that is it right there... losing spirit. But for the Nets, the team overhauled the coaching team, the owner, so it should not linger. Without tanking, the Nets also wouldn't have been in Melo discussion (because they're not giving up Lopez). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The Nets are probably going to miss out on Melo. They didn't get LeBron James. They didn't get John Wall or Evan Turner. And that, right there, is my other problem with tanking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guru Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The Nets are probably going to miss out on Melo. They didn't get LeBron James. They didn't get John Wall or Evan Turner. And that, right there, is my other problem with tanking.Like I stated before, we would be in the same spot we are in right now whether we tanked or not. Was tanking successful? No. Would things be different if we didn't tank? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The Nets are probably going to miss out on Melo. They didn't get LeBron James. They didn't get John Wall or Evan Turner. And that, right there, is my other problem with tanking.Yet, they still got a good player in Favors, instead of someone like Ed Davis. idk..if my team isn't doing anything and doesn't have anything to look forward, I'd rather tank, draft real good young players, hope they blossom and make the team a championship contender in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multi-Billionaire Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 ^They DID get Derrick Favors... who I think will be better than Turner. And if they hadn't tank, the chances of landing Wall/ Turner would have got even smaller... unless they think they'd be as lucky as Bulls with D-Rose (1.7%). And if they hadn't tanked, they wouldn't win a championship in the next decade. IF Favors turns out to be a hybrid of Amare and Dwight, they're suddenly dreaming about winning it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Universe Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Problem with tanking is keeping fan support. Nets got lucky with the new owner and all this hype around LeBron James because I know I wasn't watching games near the end because what's the point of wasting your time when they put someone who has never coached in the NBA and say they are still trying. But if a team like Vancouver tanked in a market of hockey fans or just in an area without a huge interest, nobody is going to come out the games the next year and you end up in Memphis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.