Defining tanking in such broad terms renders discussion about its merits pointless. Perhaps more importantly to the pro-tanking advocates, it serves to inoculate them from criticism because now they can invoke any number of examples, i.e., 5-10, to claim that it works. For example, the Lakers sucked long before Kobe retired. But because they sucked for several seasons and were able to leverage this to get AD once LeBron joined, viola, successful tank (albeit only after six long-suffering years). This, despite the fact that their sucking was in no way the result of any strategic plan (they were trying to win, which is why they signed Nash and Howard), but due to general FO incompetence and other factors.
Another example. Orlando is being advanced as a successful tank job because they have a promising young core. Well, yes, but that’s after seven years of being in the lottery after trading Howard, followed by two years of consecutive first-round losses, another three years in the lottery, and a first-round loss. That’s a total of 10 years of sucking and three first-round exits.
If those are your ideas of “successful” tanks, you’re correct, there’s no discussion to be had.
Context matters. Although sitting players remains an ongoing strategy to enhance draft positioning, the discussion of tanking in the current NBA climate overwhelmingly centers around structural rebuilds, i.e., tearing down an existing team to accumulate draft picks over the years and either use the draft picks to land a star or stars or leveraging them to acquire star players in trades. That and the end goal is to win a championship, not to win high 50 games every year, put a competitive and entertaining product on the court, but get bounced out in the first or second round every year.
This context is also the fulcrum for discussions about tanking here on Jazzfanz. The Jazz underwent a structural teardown/rebuild to put the team in a position to win an NBA championship. Anyone who denies or downplays this is being disingenuous.
However, ignoring this reality facilitates yet another rhetorical trick pro-tankers like to use. For example, if someone on this board expresses skepticism about the merits of tanking (i.e., Jazz structural teardown and rebuild), the pro-tankers can point to, say, the San Antonio Spurs sitting David Robinson as a successful tank job, so … checkmate! Notwithstanding, the San Antonio situation doesn’t remotely resemble that of the Jazz.
If pro-tankers on this board want to argue that tanking is the best way forward or push back on tanking skepticism, they need to argue about the merits of the teardown/structural rebuild strategy; otherwise, it’s apples to oranges.
My issue with tanking is the lack of critical, skeptical pushback on its merits and cost. It is supported by an impenetrable wall of collective groupthink and haughty disdain for those who dare question it (i.e., galaxy brains vs. the rubes). It is now the largely unquestioned convention wisdom, which in and of itself should be sending up red flags and ringing alarm bells.
I’m not pro or anti-tanking, per se. I’m more than willing to entertain the argument that tanking CAN work, as OKC or San Antonio may soon demonstrate. Thus, there are indeed good strategic arguments for tanking. But I’m skeptical about the prevailing, unquestioned insistence on tanking (i.e., structural teardown and rebuild) as the single “best” strategy to put a team on the championship path.
I also would really like an honest discussion about the tradeoffs. Just how many years of losing is worth it for a moderately elevated prospect of winning the championship? As a representative of the “I want to watch competitive, entertaining basketball, even if it doesn’t mean a winning championship crowd,” I put the cutoff at around three seasons. NO championship is worth enduring what the fanbases at Detroit, Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, Orlando, etc. have endured.
As for the argument that tanking is a way to generate excitement and hope in the fanbase, I note that game threads now barely crack three pages when, in a normal year, they’d often be into double-digits. Many outside of the pro-tanking crowd have fled, at least from active posting. I think we’d all agree this is not behavior we’d expect from an excited fanbase. I would also offer the many empty stadium seats at the supposed tanking franchises as evidence that tanking doesn’t excite the fanbase but rather has the opposite effect.
In the end, I’m happy to find a middle ground regarding how we define tanking, with the proviso that it needs to be relevant to the Jazz's current context. This is, after all, a website dedicated to discussing the Jazz.
