What's new

2024-2025 Tank Race

The smugness goes both ways though. The never tankers will mention how it doesn't ever work and then you give them 5-10 examples of it working and they are like "that wasn't tanking".

There is just no fool proof plan or even a good route you feel is dependable. Its just choosing between bad choices. I thought it was smart to pivot when we did but we should have been shuffling the deck the two years or so before that and made some tremendous errors prior to the tear down. Tony Jones has also said we didn't have the choice of keeping Donovan. So I think he had let them know behind the scenes but... shrug.

At this point I think anti-tankers have to think its the best route for us now but smart tankers also need to know this route almost surely leads to multi year pain and just an okayish outcome.

Side note - I think I have the solution to fix tanking but will wait for the pod to outline it. Remind me @Elizah Huge when we pod as I think I have stumbled onto a concept that would work.

I think we need to answer two questions to be on the same page in the tanking discussion:
1. What is tanking?
2. What is the goal of tanking?

In the context of the current NBA, and judging by what I hear/read routinely from talking heads, podcasters, blog boys, and social media fans, my answers to these two questions are
1. Intentionally tearing the team down to the studs to accumulate draft picks and build through the draft. (Sitting David Robinson to get Tim Duncan was not a tank by this definition.)
2. Winning an NBA championship (i.e., ringz culture). Creating a perennial playoff team that routinely makes it to the second round or even the conference finals now and then is not enough (i.e., the "treadmill of mediocrity"). Sooner or later, the talking heads, podcasters, etc., will begin beating the drum to tear it all down.

Based on the above, I'm unaware of any team that has successfully tanked, except perhaps, Boston (we can debate this). OKC may prove an exception and, possibly, down the road, San Antonio. But, it seems to me that this strategy, and the accumulation of draft picks, is far more likely to put a team on the road of perpetual sucking or mediocrity (e.g., Washington, Detroit, Orlando, Charlotte, Houston, New Orleans) than it is to put a team on the road to a championship.

I would also like to see a frank discussion about the cost/benefits of tanking. In particular, how many years of sucking are people willing to trade for what is mostly likely, at best, a moderately elevated chance of winning the championship? For example, do Philly fans think that the years of sucking were worth it to make it no further than the second round? (Granted, if Philly had drafted better, the story might be different. But, at the same time, everyone they drafted was a consensus top prospect.)

How would you answer the above two questions? I’m assuming you answer them differently because, as I understand tanking, I don’t see 5-10 successful examples. I don't presume that my answers are the only legitimate ones. However, I think we need some agreement around them to have a productive discussion.

A final observation. My sense is that those people who are skeptical about tanking, who aren’t obsessed with winning a championship, and who would rather watch entertaining basketball year in and out, even if it doesn’t lead to a championship, than endure years of sucking for the possibility of winning a championship tend to be shouted down, patronized, and marginalized by the tanking advocates, not necessarily on this board, but in the overall tenor of the NBA media and social media landscape.
 
The Lakers tanked for three years and experienced amazing fortune in the draft lottery to acquire consecutive #2 picks. They recruited Lebron in free agency and used their players acquired at the top of these drafts trade for Anthony Davis. Hence, tanking was a large part of attracting and building a winning team around Lebron.

Cleveland tanked two seasons in order to draft Darius Garland and Evan Mobley, two cornerstones of the team that now has the best record in the league.

Houston tanked to draft Jalen Green, Jabari Smith, Amen Thompson and Reed Sheppard. They currently have the 2nd best record in the Western Conference built around their young core.

Orlando tanked multiple seasons to draft Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner and Paolo Banchero. This now constitutes the core of a young, up-and-coming team that should be top 4 in the Eastern Conference for years to come.

There are many other examples.
 
Our top tanking competitors never win.
Tonight is looking really bad for the tank
 
The Lakers tanked for three years and experienced amazing fortune in the draft lottery to acquire consecutive #2 picks. They recruited Lebron in free agency and used their players acquired at the top of these drafts trade for Anthony Davis. Hence, tanking was a large part of attracting and building a winning team around Lebron.

Cleveland tanked two seasons in order to draft Darius Garland and Evan Mobley, two cornerstones of the team that now has the best record in the league.

Houston tanked to draft Jalen Green, Jabari Smith, Amen Thompson and Reed Sheppard. They currently have the 2nd best record in the Western Conference built around their young core.

Orlando tanked multiple seasons to draft Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner and Paolo Banchero. This now constitutes the core of a young, up-and-coming team that should be top 4 in the Eastern Conference for years to come.

There are many other examples.

Did the Lakers tank (i.e., intentionally tear down an otherwise competitive team to accumulate draft picks), or were they organically bad? I don't recall.

For that matter, did Orlando, Detroit, Washington, and Orlando tank? Or was their sucktitude more a matter of front office incompetence or other factors?

Did Cleveland tank? LeBron left, and Kyrie forced his way out. Did the front office intentionally tear down the team?

From my perspective, tanking requires intentionality, not getting lottery picks because star players age out or leave or general front office incompetence. On considering this, perhaps a better definition of tanking is as follows: Intentionally tearing down an otherwise competitive team, defined as one that routinely competes for the playoffs, with the aim of winning a championship. I don't believe that tearing down a perennial lottery team qualifies as tanking.

Houston, Orlando, and Cleveland haven't won anything yet. If the objective of tanking is to be a playoff team or top 4 in the conference, then they've arguably succeeded (assuming they meet the definition of tanking). If the goal is to win a championship, the jury is out. If they don't win a championship, do we judge the tank a success? How many years of sucking are worth it to be a top-four team in the conference? What IS the metric for a successful tank?

It comes back to how we define tanking and its goal. Until we do, we'll keep talking past each other.
 
Houston, Orlando, and Cleveland haven't won anything yet. If the objective of tanking is to be a playoff team or top 4 in the conference, then they've arguably succeeded (assuming they meet the definition of tanking). If the goal is to win a championship, the jury is out. If they don't win a championship, do we judge the tank a success? How many years of sucking are worth it to be a top-four team in the conference? What IS the metric for a successful tank?
Tanking is not about winning the championship because everything in the NBA is about winning the championship. Tanking is about dismantling an old and predictable team that is destined to slowly decline and instead building a new team full of hopes, expectations and excitement. It's like being reborn as a teenager with an uncertain but exciting life ahead of you.

Or like breaking up with your long-term girlfriend because you are not in love with her anymore and you will try finding someone new. It is mostly about emotions.
 
Did the Lakers tank (i.e., intentionally tear down an otherwise competitive team to accumulate draft picks), or were they organically bad? I don't recall.

For that matter, did Orlando, Detroit, Washington, and Orlando tank? Or was their sucktitude more a matter of front office incompetence or other factors?

Did Cleveland tank? LeBron left, and Kyrie forced his way out. Did the front office intentionally tear down the team?

From my perspective, tanking requires intentionality, not getting lottery picks because star players age out or leave or general front office incompetence. On considering this, perhaps a better definition of tanking is as follows: Intentionally tearing down an otherwise competitive team, defined as one that routinely competes for the playoffs, with the aim of winning a championship. I don't believe that tearing down a perennial lottery team qualifies as tanking.

Houston, Orlando, and Cleveland haven't won anything yet. If the objective of tanking is to be a playoff team or top 4 in the conference, then they've arguably succeeded (assuming they meet the definition of tanking). If the goal is to win a championship, the jury is out. If they don't win a championship, do we judge the tank a success? How many years of sucking are worth it to be a top-four team in the conference? What IS the metric for a successful tank?

It comes back to how we define tanking and its goal. Until we do, we'll keep talking past each other.

Are you actually a gerbil?
 
Tanking is not about winning the championship because everything in the NBA is about winning the championship. Tanking is about dismantling an old and predictable team that is destined to slowly decline and instead building a new team full of hopes, expectations and excitement. It's like being reborn as a teenager with an uncertain but exciting life ahead of you.

Or like breaking up with your long-term girlfriend because you are not in love with her anymore and you will try finding someone new. It is mostly about emotions.

That is not the context in which I've heard/read most tanking conversations occur. For the most part, tanking is advanced as the solution for teams to get off the "mediocrity treadmill" and on the path to a championship. This corresponds with the prevailing ringz culture that dominates the current NBA landscape. Tanking and rings are almost invariably intertwined in this conversation.

If we took a representative poll of the viewers of the website or Jazz fans in general, how many would say that they are full of hopes, expectations, and excitement about the Jazz tank and the prospect of several years of sucking? I'd lay metaphorical money that it's a sizeable minority.
 
I
That is not the context in which I've heard/read most tanking conversations occur. For the most part, tanking is advanced as the solution for teams to get off the "mediocrity treadmill" and on the path to a championship. This corresponds with the prevailing ringz culture that dominates the current NBA landscape. Tanking and rings are almost invariably intertwined in this conversation.

If we took a representative poll of the viewers of the website or Jazz fans in general, how many would say that they are full of hopes, expectations, and excitement about the Jazz tank and the prospect of several years of sucking? I'd lay metaphorical money that it's a sizeable minority.
Whoops, I meant to say a small minority.
 
Did the Lakers tank (i.e., intentionally tear down an otherwise competitive team to accumulate draft picks), or were they organically bad? I don't recall.

For that matter, did Orlando, Detroit, Washington, and Orlando tank? Or was their sucktitude more a matter of front office incompetence or other factors?

Did Cleveland tank? LeBron left, and Kyrie forced his way out. Did the front office intentionally tear down the team?

From my perspective, tanking requires intentionality, not getting lottery picks because star players age out or leave or general front office incompetence. On considering this, perhaps a better definition of tanking is as follows: Intentionally tearing down an otherwise competitive team, defined as one that routinely competes for the playoffs, with the aim of winning a championship. I don't believe that tearing down a perennial lottery team qualifies as tanking.

Houston, Orlando, and Cleveland haven't won anything yet. If the objective of tanking is to be a playoff team or top 4 in the conference, then they've arguably succeeded (assuming they meet the definition of tanking). If the goal is to win a championship, the jury is out. If they don't win a championship, do we judge the tank a success? How many years of sucking are worth it to be a top-four team in the conference? What IS the metric for a successful tank?

It comes back to how we define tanking and its goal. Until we do, we'll keep talking past each other.

I tend to think winning is a habit and it is very hard to just start winning after years of a losing culture. Maybe OKC buck the trend I think they have enough talent but do they have the winning culture?

What I despise about the current team and the direction of the organisation is its lack of direction and pointlessness. Why should i care to watcha game when nobody out their playing ****ing cares?
 
Back
Top