Tanking Or Not Tanking?

It has become an epidemic, a virtual plague among the sports media.  Fans have even been infected. If it is not Chad Ford, it's that knucklhead Felger spewing out the tank it up song.

Are we tanking?

Sure doesn't sound like our revitalized backcourt is playing to tank.  And neither are the rest of the players who all play the game because they want to win.

But what about Ainge and young Brad?  Are they tanking?  Both maintain the company line that they are building for the future while developing players.  They said it is not about wins and losses.  Are those tanking words?  Well we are about to find out.  Trades winds are coming.  You can feel it.  It must be true because of the Chris Johnson situation.  I do not think it is even about the money.  The pressure is apparently on to make space on the roster.  This one will be another multi-player trade.  Ainge began the trade game with the PP/KG deal and then traded Lee and in a separate trade moved Both Brooks and Crawford.  This will be trade #4 since the process began.

But lets hope the result is not another lateral move.  If DA is not looking to add quality then why mess with Chris Johnson  (my new nickname for him...the laser)

We are about to find out if we are being tanked!

A quality addition will speed up the journey back to respectability.



dboss

I think the term "convenience tanking" can be applied here.

The players have no desire to lose games. And I don't think Brad wants to lose, either. As for Ainge, he did state that the playoffs were not actually a goal for this year. Is that necessarily tanking? No, but its suggestive wording nonetheless. The team has played hard overall although there have been stretches where the effort wasn't there as a result of poor morale.

The team is not very good right now, despite the fact that most of the components to this team are good. We all know that a center is missing, but so is consistent bench scoring. There's a few more missing pieces to this puzzle.

So yes, I'd say convenience tanking is very much applicable.



KJ

Dboss,
My take on the "Celtics are tanking" is this.
It's a controversy. Controversy sells. If there's no controversy the likes of Ford and Felger don't have much else to sell.

AK

To me, tanking means deliberately trying to lose to gain draft position.

The players don't give a shit about draft position, they're playing for contracts and pride, so they're not tanking.

Brad Stevens doesn't give a shit about draft position, he's trying his best with the roster he has, so he's not tanking either.

Is Danny tanking? I think if Danny could have used those bazillion draft picks to get the player that he thought would take us up another notch over the off-season, he would have done it. He couldn't, because sellers weren't as motivated like they are now. So, was Danny tanking because he couldn't use his assets to get what he wants? I say no. If Danny pulls off a coup over the next 2 weeks is he no longer tanking, or was he just waiting for the right deal to come along?

This tanking talk is all about the fans. Some fans want us to lose because they're in love with unproven talent.

Losing is not a winning strategy.


bob


.

Bob..
To me if you don't try to improve your team that's tanking,if you trade Jordan Crawford and Courtney Lee for inferior players that's tanking and if you knowing that your team need a rim protector and you don't make a trade for one that's tanking.My definition for tanking is simple ..not present the best possible team to win games.I got a question for you..imagine that you are a GM of a baseball team that has complete player with stats of 30 homers,100 RBI and a 3.20 average but you are out of the playoff race and your star player is going to be a free agent ,then another team offer 3 prospects that are not ready yet to be in the majors,if you make the trade knowing that you are going to loose the majority of the games,do you consider that a way of tanking?To me the answer is yes,because you are doing nothing to avoid to loose games.

international wrote:Bob..
To me if you don't try to improve your team that's tanking,if you trade Jordan Crawford and Courtney Lee for inferior players that's tanking and if you knowing that your team need a rim protector and you don't make a trade for one that's tanking.My definition for tanking is simple ..not present the best possible team to win games.I got a question for you..imagine that you are a GM of a baseball team that has complete player with stats of 30 homers,100 RBI and a 3.20 average but you are out of the playoff race and your star player is going to be a free agent ,then another team offer 3 prospects that are not ready yet to be in the majors,if you make the trade knowing that you are going to loose the majority of the games,do you consider that a way of tanking?To me the answer is yes,because you are doing nothing to avoid to loose games.

Disagree

Of course define the not ready for the 3 prospects....... what level are ethey in A....triple AAA?

If your out of the pennant race and your so called slugger will be a free agent and I get my hands on three good prspects for a guy I might not even have in another few months I might just jump on it. Depending on need and positions and if they are lefty pitchers oh boy do I jump on it!

Crawford was not taking us anywhere, Lee??? We will get to where we need to be a lot sooner than many other teams with records close to ours.

beat

Beat if you don't present your best product you are tanking,in fact once you decide to rebuild you are part of a tanking,because you are giving your best asssets for draft picks or young players that are not ready to help inmediatly.And that's part of the game.Take the sixers for example if they give Evan Turner and Taddeus Young for draft picks they are going to tank even more.

international wrote:Beat if you don't present your best product you are tanking,in fact once you decide to rebuild you are part of a tanking,because you are giving your best asssets for draft picks or young players that are not ready to help inmediatly.And that's part of the game.Take the sixers for example if they give Evan Turner and Taddeus Young for draft picks they are going to tank even more.

And wallow in the land of never good enough to win anything.

Glad we didn't feel that way about WWII, we could have sent more people in harms way without the needed supplies or eqiupment, we needed to get the country ready for war and it took some time. Once production got under way things began to change. Until then we just sort of held the fort till we could go on the attack.......... well right now we are holding fort. And hopefully the turn around won't be far away.

Idea is to win yes. but winning half your games gets you nothing. Like winning a battle...........and losing the war.

We agree to disagree, we are not tanking in my boook and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

beat

I think that the Celtics are trying to improve. But sometimes you have to take a step backward to give yourself the chance to take two steps forward.

International, given all the limitations within which the Celtics are operating, who gets to define what their "best product" is? I'd be willing to bet that, if 10 members of this board submitted their definitions of "best product," they'd all be different.

Does "best product" automatically mean the product that will win the most games. Or could the best product be one that recognizes the need to rebuild and is positioning the team to do that as well and quickly as possible to do so under the circumstances?

You seem to like to equate losses with tanking. It's not that simple. Why don't you also recognize some of the good things Danny has done—some at the expense of making some present compromises—including stockpiling 700,000 draft picks (okay, that's a slight exaggeration) and ridding the Celtics of huge contracts for players on the downside of their careers and perhaps even in danger of "losing it" almost overnight?

I suppose they might have won a few more games with KG and Paul Pierce still here (although, without Rondo for so long, that possibility is definitely not a guaranty), but what good are a few more wins if they still don't make the playoffs (or even if they do make the playoffs but don't come close to a championship) and you just put off the rebuilding process for another season.

You may feel differently, but my criterion for a truly satisfactory season involves winning the championship. Period! For this team to poop along perhaps at a .500 pace when it could, instead, be expediting the possibility of winning their next championship sooner rather than later just doesn't make sense to me.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose, before the trade deadline, the Celtics somehow succeed in trading for Asik or some other very good defensive rim-protector. Will you consider that some form of tanking? If an army retreats in order to reform and mount a potent offensive, was the retreat some kind of tanking (aka losing purposely)? No, it is actually solid military strategy. Basketball is really no different. (I actually wrote these words before I saw Beat's message invoking another form of war analogy.)

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, and you're most welcome to post it. I just hope you'll consider all the factors that are involved rather than simply insisting that failing to win under certain conditions is tanking.

All the best,

Sam

Sam,you know that I respect everybodys opinion here,but I got a question for you ....can you name the last bonafide center in this team since Robert Parish?And when I say bonafide I am talking about over 10 rebounds per game ,good interior defense and post play.Maybe you can name one ,but I cant remember .So if you have a team over 20 years without a good center ,do you think that is present the best product?Dont get me wrong I was a Kendrick Perkins fan and I am sure you remember me fighting the famous character named the Dudder defending Perk from him,but Perk was not an elite center either.You have to admit that if you get in rebuilding you are preparing yourself to be loosing a lot of games and I don't like to loose even in the excibition games,thats my nature I am a competitor.

I do not think any players or coaches tank games.

Yes, General Managers and Owners do at some times make short term sacrifices for a long term benefit.

The Lakers might trade Gasol in the next two weeks, hoping to get a 1st round pick. Is this tanking? No, it's planning for the future. If LA wins 25 games without Gasol or 27 with him, it makes no difference.

Maybe this is a bad analogy, but even in life we do things in the current that hurt us but help us in the future. We go through surgery or chemo which make us worse now, but healthier in the future.

International,

The Celtics don't necessarily need an "elite" center. They just need a center that can play stout defense, rebound, and chip in on offense with consistency and free throw shooting is a plus. But that's not to say that an elite center shouldn't be a target, either. If they ever found one, look out. This year, that element hasn't been present. Sullinger and Humphries, though they play hard every night, are not centers and can't fill that role. Kelly is even more inferior in that regards and Vitor, though he has the size, lacks the ability to step in *now* and be a presence.

In regards to the pursuit of Asik, I have my reservations. He has yet to return to action and that's a bit of a red flag in my book. Is he still injured? Would the trade inevitably become a waste of assets for a guy that can't stay on the court? This is all speculation on my part, but the fact that he hasn't played gives me concerns a bit of justification nonetheless.

After Garnett and Pierce's departure, we all knew what the next step would be, heck, even before when Rondo went down. A transitional year. And it's okay. The accumulated losses can be frustrating to endure, and the team will lose games they should win. But many of the games this year have been entertaining despite all of the new faces. And think about this, is it really all that important to get this worked up about a team that simply lacks the necessary pieces? The best player on the team is just not getting back, and a majority of the season has been spent without a legit center and point guard. Under that kind of adversity, it'd be significantly difficult for any team to succeed under those circumstances.

On a final thought, it is still conceivable that this team could make a late run for the playoffs. Sure, it'd be a one and done but it could happen.




KJ

International, although you chose to ignore the questions I asked you, I'll try to answer your questions.  I'll start with another question to you.  What is an elite center?  Please define an elite center for me.  The fact is that you can't do it.  And the reason is because different teams need different things from a center and most of today's centers have strengths but also weaknesses.  The thing to do is get a center whose strengths help you considerably more than his weaknesses hurt you.

The Celtics won a championship with Perk at center because, even though he wasn't elite in any sense of the word, he provided things that would have been lacking on the team otherwise.  He didn't have to be the world's best scorer.  He didn't have to be the fastest runner.  He didn't have to be most agile guy.  Basically, he mostly had to provide toughness.  The other players provided other things the team needed.  That's called teamwork.  That's called chemistry.  That's called filling roles.

It's too bad you never like to lose.  I don't know anyone who does.  I bet I hate to lose more than you do because I grew up watching a team that won so constantly that one of their players said, when they lost a game, they thought it was a mistake.  I cut my basketball teeth on winning—and not just winning games—almost always winning championships.

But one has to have a sense of reality.  Teams typically reach their peak with a certain core of players.  Then that core starts to fade, and they face the very difficult question of when and how to build a new and hopefully successful core.  However they decide to proceed, it almost never happens overnight or anything like it, and—yes—losses often occur.

I suppose someone might ask why a team doesn't trade a player who is just entering the downside of his career for a younger player who can become a valuable member of the core.  That sounds good, but it isn't practical.  In the first place, the coach and general manager don't have a crystal ball to tell them if one "down" season is really a symptom of deteriorating skills. Moreover, when a player has been a valued member of the core for a while, it's often better to keep him beyond his prime to take advantage of his chemistry with the team, his experience in general, and his leadership capabilities.

Think of the barriers in the way of building a contending team.  Just a few of them:

• The Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Salary Cap and Luxury Tax introduce a lot of financial complexity.

• If a team is just good enough to get mediocre draft picks every year, the draft is not a very good way to replace players on the downside of their careers.  The 20 mediocre seasons you mentioned were actually only 14 in number, and they played poorer than .400 ball in only four of those seasons and had top five picks in only two of those 14 years and top 10 picks in only 7 of those 14 years.

• If a team is a little over-the-hill, the likelihood is that they have a shortage of attractive chips to trade for elite players.

• Even if the team has a lot of free money under the cap (which is less likely to happen if over-the-hill players are still on the team), signing free agents is a crap shoot.  We saw that when Danny was praised to the skies for signing Terry and Lee, who were among more highly touted free agents more than a year ago; but they didn't even make it a third of the way up the elite pole.  We saw another crap shoot when Danny signed Shaq, who was ultimately the reason they felt they could get rid of Perk.  But Shaq broke down physically, and so did Jermaine O'Neal the same season.

With the exception of the Russell Celtics, an NBA team just can't win most of the time year after year.  At best, they'll have good periods and bad periods; and, in a time of rebuilding or development or whatever you want to call it, the process is generally taking hold when the good starts to outweigh the bad.

One has to have some sense of reality that puts raw emotion into perspective.  You made a statement I just don't understand.  You said, "If you get into rebuilding, you are preparing yourself to lose a lot of games."  Would you prefer that the team would never rebuild?  Would you prefer that KG and Paul Pierce would have played with the Celtics until they're as old as Bill Russell is now?  You seem to be under the assumption that the elite player leprochaun should descend on TD Garden and magically drop an elite center in Danny's and Brad's lap.  There's no sense of reality to that line of thinking.

When you think about the mediocre 14 years, you should always begin with the deaths of two significant Celtics expected to lead the Celtics in the nineties.  You should also think about the conventional wisdom today that the Celtics led with their hearts rather than with their heads in not shipping Bird and McHale out in trades when they still had value in the late 80s.  In other words, because they delayed the rebuilding process they suffered through a longer drought than they probably would have otherwise.  So, you're actually arguing against yourself if you say (1) rebuilding is not a good idea but (2) you resent what happened as a result of delaying the rebuilding process in the 90s.

Do you really seriously think the Celtics were attempting to tank in every one of those 14 years?  Do you seriously think they wanted to play their home games with a crowd consisting of only the players' families?  Do you seriously think they wanted to lose their television contract and, for that matter, maybe their radio contract too?  Besides, those 14 years have nothing to do with today, especially because there's a huge difference in the quality of the team's management between then and now.

I suggest that, as a competitor, you might give some thought to all the very valid reasons why it's simply impossible to win almost every game.  You say you don't even like to lose exhibition games.  So would you prefer that the coach play only veterans all the time in exhibition games so as to win as many games as possible without paying any attention to developing and evaluating younger players?  Sorry, but that just makes no sense at all to me.

One can compete and be disappointed at every loss without being unrealistic about the fact that losses are inevitable in the sporting world.  Someone loses every game (except in the NHL and rarely in the NFL).  But losses happen, especially in the face of all the roadblocks I mentioned above.

I guess it's people's privilege to scream "Tank, tank" every time their team loses a game or goes on a losing streak.  For myself, although I have a fiercely competitive spirit, I prefer to enjoy the games; to look for the good things and take note of where improvements are needed; to enjoy the signs of growth; and to think of myself as witnessing the architecture of the next Celtics championship team.

I hope you'll consider doing the same.  I believe that, if this season sees the Celtics taking important steps in developing, it can be considered a winning season on the most important criterion.

Sam

Sam ,seems to me we are never going to be in the same page with this theme of tanking and rebuild and that's ok with me because always a pleasure to have a discussion with a person who has a lot of wisdom and experience.You are throwing me too many questions and I am going to answer all of them with my limitations in enlish grammar.i am going to start with the ones according to you I chosed to ignore.
1- to me the best product in this case is a balanced team,with a quality center who could play his position with limitations,a good point guard,good defense and good role players and a good coach....right now we don't have the center and the coach doesn't have the experience to be good.So we have to say this is not the best product,i might add that Robin Lopez and Miles Plumplee were available in the off season and by the way Danny elected to draft Fab Melo Over Plumplee.
2-You hate when people put words in your mouth and you are doing exactly that with me when you say...you don't recognize some of the good things Danny has done.I always been gratefull with Dannys job with the team,but he is not perfect (nobody is)and in my opinion he has to start with the adquisition of a good center and then solve the other ploblems of the team.
3-elite center--I used the word elite but maybe I used in a wrong way,i am not asking for a Bill Russell,Dave Cowens, or Robert Parish type of center ,but I think we need a natural center like Asik,Tyson Chandler,or Robin Lopez.A center like Sam Lacey,Marvin Webster or Ermore Smith (do you remember those players?)will be perfect.
4-when did I say this team had been a mediocre kind of team?you are putting words in my mouth again,i only said that after Parish was gone we had been without a center for a long time.
-5---I got a question for you..Have you seen the Yankees and Lakers rebuilding?Those team never rebuild ,they always present their best product,sometimes is not good for a championship but they don't sacrifice seasons.

In #1 I should say without limitations instead of with limitations.

I forget to mention one more thing..you are wrong when you infer or deduce that I did not want the trade with Brooklyn.Have you seen me saying that trade was bad ?So why did you say .... Would you prefer that KG and Paul Pierce would have played with the Celtics until they're as old as Bill Russell is now? You seem to be under the assumption that the elite player leprochaun should descend on TD Garden and magically drop an elite center in Danny's and Brad's lap. There's no sense of reality to that line of thinking......
Another question from you that I want to answer is..Do you really seriously think the Celtics were attempting to tank in every one of those 14 years? my answer is yes sir I do believe that the year before the draft with Tim Duncan the Celtics tanked with ML Carr as a coach.

Both the Yankees and Lakers are rebuilding right now.

I don't like the word "tanking" used the way it has this year. "Tanking" means that the coaches and players are deliberately trying to lose games and I do not believe that is what we are seeing. I don't see the Celtics players trying to lose or the Sixers trying to lose. They may both be bad teams right now but they aren't "tanking".

The main problem here is that I have a diferent definition of tanking,yo all of you tanking is play to lose in order to have a better position in the draft.To me tank include a lot more than that...for example,to try to put good numbers to get a new contract,trade players knowing that your team is giving the best player,when you don't make a trade for a needed player because the other team ask you for a draft pick,showcase players to get good value in future trades and bring only players with cheap contracts.By the way Leandro Barbosa is playing very good in Phoenix,but the Celtics did not sign him.

KyleCleric wrote:Both the Yankees and Lakers are rebuilding right now.

Kyle,

That's true, but in the Yankees' case I think you can call it "re-buying."

Regards

International, thanks for taking a stab at answering my questions. I hope you don't think I somehow use language differences against you.

I agree that the best kind of team is a balanced team. I talk about it constantly on this board. However, this is where reality comes in. A well-balanced team doesn't happen overnight, especially when you're operating from a position of weakness in terms of cap flexibility, a succession of mid-round draft picks, and a lack of appealing trade chips.

I'm sorry if you bellieve I put words in your mouth. When I called 14 years of Celtics teams "mediocre," that was MY description. I never said you said those words. You mentioned that era. I called it mediocre. And it absolutely was.

But, putting that aside for a moment (because it has nothing to do with today's Celtics team and today's management), I agree completely that the number one priority for the Celtics should be a center—not just a center but a proven, defensively oriented center in my opinion. But, although you seem to feel they come out of think air. You mentioned Plumlee. As I recalled, he was traded for another big man. The Pacers wanted another big man for him. What big man did the Celtics have to offer? Melo?

You also mention that Robin Lopez was available this year. Well he went to the Trailblazers who had the cap room to take on his salary because the only salary the Blazers got rid of in the trade was Jeff Whitney's (who?) $1.25. Did the Celtics have the cap room to take on his salary? There are always barriers. Danny's quite good at getting around barriers. But he doesn't make every move you or I might think is so easy because you and I don't know 5% of what he has to deal with—financial implications, the blueprint for the future, chemistry, health issues, and many, many, many more. I believe Danny's definition of a what it takes to do his job well is not your definition of what it takes to do his job well.

You're probably right that we won't agree on this subject, although I hope you'll consider it a friendly disagreement. You have a very basic, straightforward outlook....just put the best conceivable product on the floor at all times. I think rebuilding a team is far more complicated than that.

But, when all is said and done, we both want the same thing.....for the Celtics to be championship-driven as soon as possible.

Sam

Sam,don't get me wrong ,I love to have a discussion with you.It just that for maybe the first time I am disappointed for the way Danny is running the team.Do you remember last year when the team was killed on the boards,specially on the offensive rebounds?Everybody was asking for a big man or two and Andray Blatche,Kenion Martin and the Birdman were all available but Danny did not sign one of them and all 3 became productive with the teams that signed themRemember Danny passed on Plumlee and Festus Ezeli to pick Melo.Like you said at the end we are both Celtics fans who want the best for team and more important we are good friends and I am proud to be your friends and that's for sure.

International, Blatche was regarded as a troublemaker and underachiever; Martin was considered washed up; and the Birdman was able to have success at Miami because he could be just a complementary piece rather than one of the most important parts of the team—which he would have been as the truest Celtics center.  I'm sure Danny passed on Plumlee and Ezeli for good reasons of his own; and, as I said, neither you nor I have any idea about all the factors that Danny takes into consideration on such matters.  For every reason that sounds like a good one to you and me, there could be six reasons that sound bad to Danny, but we don't know about them.

I guess one of the main differences between us is that (1) Danny has repeatedly earned my confidence that he'll make the right move far more often than the wrong move and (2) he's human like everyone else.  Moreover, it's much easier to be wise later on; Danny has to make his decisions at the moment of truth without the benefit of hindsight like we now have.

My feeling about any tanking theory is that people who think the Celtics are tanking are speaking mainly about Danny because they have no idea what really goes on in his plans and negotiations.

We can see the team ourselves and develop better clues as to whether the players and/or coach are tanking.  Based on watching pro basketball for more than 60 years, I haven't seen any consistent clues to that effect.  So at least I hope we can agree that the players/coach are definitely not tanking.  Frankly, I hope they reach the playoffs just to shut up anyone who might think that way.

Anyway, perhaps will come into better focus within the next two weeks.  I believe Danny has been doing little deals with the obvious intent in paving the way for something more major.  The little deals might seem of no importance to people, but that's the way a team is usually built.  You seldom have the chance to turn around a poor team overnight.  It has to happen piece by piece, just like erecting a brick building.  There are often many little unexciting pieces (including making roster room, stockpiling draft picks, and shedding salary among many other factors) that make way for the acquisition of fewer exciting pieces.

I suggest that you be patient for at least two more weeks and think more about what's happening now and what can happen in the future rather than what happened under other administrations in the distant past.

Of course we are good friends.  People like you, who may have to put extra effort into posting on this board, are very much appreciated here.  Some may have language difficulties.  Some may live far away.  Some may have work schedules that conflict with being on the Game-on Threads.  But what they have in common is that they think enough of the Celtics to make that extra effort in order to be able to discuss the Celtics with other members of the board.  I really think that's particularly cool.

Sam

This time ,I agree 100% with you.