Well it seems like there is some confusion on this issue. I don't know anybody who is in favor of actually intentionally losing games. I do know many people who feel it's time to trade the veterans and rebuild. And if we did that, we'll certainly lose many games. And that's exactly what Seattle did. They traded Ray Allen and rebuilt.
Rashard Lewis is garbage. If Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis are your only decent players, you don't exactly have to "tank" in order to hit the lottery, which is exactly what happened.
Well yeah, Ray Allen was a very old guy and they had no other young talent on that team. That's completely different not only from the Rockets situation but it also isn't tanking.
fine. For three consecutive years they SSSUUUCKKKEEDD. I don't call that tanking. Maybe you do? Not me. When you start the season 1-19 and McGrady is openly requesting for a trade by the time of the "back injury", I wouldn't put that in the category of tanking either. But that's me. Heat - Wade. Not a tank. They just sucked. Clevelent - LeBron. Again, they sucked. If you are a bottom dweller already, you have no choice but to "tank" if that's what you want to call it. I don't. But hey, we can all have our own definitions I guess.
You've got to be kidding me, they were in the playoffs a few years before and if it hadn't been for their coach ditching them to coach Portland they might have continued going. Lewis in his Seattle days was a VERY good player and Ray Allen was in his late 20s/early 30s putting up 24 a game...how is that "very old." That team had to rebuild because they lost their coach, 2nd best player in Lewis and made poor personnel decisions.
We don't suck enough to tank. We won't stand a chance against those 50-loss bound teams at this point. Right now, being poised for a blockbuster trade is more in line with our championship aspires than trying to get raw lottery talent.
Yeah tanking and high draft picks are stupid, I much rather be competitive with a bunch of role players and not have a realistic chance at actually winning a championship! YEAH, 1ST AND 2ND ROUND EXITS ROCK!!! :grin:
7 games of playoff sucktivity is better than 82 games of sucktivity ...for us real fans. Of all the teams that "tank", how many of those led to a championship?
Preach my brother preach!! I agree with you buddy, no team has ever benefited from tanking! 2011 1st and 2nd round of the Playoffs!!! WOOOO!!! lol
Can't stand much longer the people who keep posting the "good examples" of those who tanked... why don't people list the rest of the teams that have tried that and failed? What's the ratio of that, hmm? I'd rather keep trying to build a winning culture, so when the "ONE" comes, we won't waste time trying to surround him with players-- we will already have them. THUS EQUALS MULTIPILE CHAMPIONSHIPS.
can somebody explain to me how the rockets tanked to a championship? did we tank to get sam cassell the year before? if its hakeem u guys meant, than thats not a good explanation of tanking. there was a good many years where things didnt go well before finally the team coming through. if anything, its an argument to stay on with your core player and working through the years of 'mediocrity'
Again, I don't know anybody in favor of intentionally losing games. I haven't seen a single person suggest that. I think people just have different ideas of what tanking/rebuilding means. And while I don't think anybody is in favor of intentionally losing games, there are many people in favor of trading away the vets and playing the young guys and letting them develop. If you do that, you will suck for a while. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. As is, we're just mired in mediocrity awaiting some sort of miracle.
And how exactly do you think the "ONE" is going to get here? Take a look around the league. Even if we include the Knicks with Amare and the Hawks with Joe Johnson (and I don't), only four teams have acquired a superstar via free agency. The Heat (Lebron), The Suns (Nash), The Knicks (Amare), the Hawks (Johnson). And again, I don't even count the Knicks and the Hawks because those guys aren't good enough to lead their teams. And how many teams acquired superstars by trade? The Celtics acquired Garnett and Allen at the tail end of their career. The Lakers stole Pau Gasol. So even if we're being generous with the term superstar, there are only six teams who have acquired their superstars via trade or free agency. (Though if you consider Melo a superstar, he'll likely soon join that list) Meanwhile, most of the superstars in the league are still on the teams that drafted them. Duncan, Kobe (even if they did have Charlotte draft him for them), Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Kevin Durant, Dwyane Wade, Dirk Nowitski (Same as Kobe), Dwight Howard. And if we go with the second tier of stars, they're mostly all on the teams that drafted them too. Danny Granger, Russell Westbrook, Brandon Roy, Yao Ming, Derrick Rose, Josh Smith, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Paul Pierce, Monta Ellis, Rudy Gay, Andre Iguodala. And of those star players who have changed uniforms, they are usually either second and third fiddle types or they are at the tail end of their careers. Teams really just don't let young stars get away. Incidentally, I didn't bring up players like John Wall, Blake Griffin, etc because they haven't had a chance to sign an extension yet. As slim as the odds of drafting a superstar may be (though I think ours are higher than many teams due to our excellent front office), it really seems the easiest way to obtain one.
that was the management. even Dream can not win it easily. this current team? never will touch the ring.
