I know that it involves losing a lot of games, but... Think back to the 1982-83 season. Bad teams everywhere were losing games on purpose just so they could get the best shot at the #1 pick in the draft, and thus acquire Ralph Sampson. As you all know, we wound up with that pick by way of a coin flip between the two teams with the worst records, one of which was obviously us. We got Sampson, and had a few seasons of awesome until, like Yao Ming 20 years later, his body broke down way too soon. Incidentally, I heard from several sources, including ESPN, that Ralph was so desired, newspapers actually started listing the division standings upside-down (worst record on top) so as to keep track of "the race for Ralph." Did that actually happen? I've always wanted to know... Anyway, it was this series of deliberate failures that led to the institution of the NBA Draft Lottery in 1985...of course, we could say a lot of things about that first lottery, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the lotto was put in place to prevent (or at least discourage) teams from losing on purpose just to get a higher pick in the draft--under the current system, the worst-record team only has a 25% chance, at best, of getting #1. At least once, the team with the WORST chance won it (1993, Orlando won and chose Chris Webber, and almost immediately traded him to Golden State for Penny Hardaway, the #3 pick...weird). The point is, if tanking means losing on purpose, wouldn't the NBA executives take notice of this, and lock us out of the lottery or something? I mean, there has to be a reason that no NBA team has ever gone 0-82 (the worst record to date was 9-73, by the Sixers in the early '70s). So, is there more to tanking than this?
No one's talking about "tanking". Some of us would just would prefer that we move Scola and Martin for younger players or picks so that we can begin with our "player development". If "player development" nets you a top pick, well then so be it! :grin: However, if we broke some league rules so be it. Not exactly like the league hasn't wronged this franchise.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't want to lose. It's just that there are so many so-called "fans" on here who have given up hope, and have thrown out the whole season before a single game has been played. Just like the Rockets gave up hope in Game 1 of the 1995 Finals when we were down by 20 in the second quarter. Isn't that right, Nick Anderson? I trust Daryl Morey. There's a reason he is the general manager and we're not. We may not have a Gasol, but who knows who could be the next Rocket. (And yes, screw David Stern. If I were the type to use profanity, I would be using it a lot here...) Anyway, all I wanted was a clear definition of tanking--I've never heard a clear definition of the word, other than "lose every game on purpose." Unless I missed something.
I'm not for intentionally losing a game by asking players to miss a shot at the end or anything. To me, tanking means playing our young guys more and develop them for the future. Trade older players that wont be here in 3-5 years for picks and/or freshman and sophmores. The young players arn't going to be winning the same amount of games as we would with Martin and Scola playing 35 minutes, so we lose more and develop them. Win win
We aren't going to tank. Les won't let us tank. I don't want us to tank. Do you guys pay attention to the tanking/rebuilding astros. Oh that's right, no one wants to watch a team who stinks it up and loses all the time, which is what would happen if we had a lineup of lowry/young sg/twill/ppat/thabeet.
Our approach to tanking is not giving up. Tanking nowadays does not mean we don't give effort. It is much more a controlled version of player development. So what if we lose 5 or 6 more games.
Tanking is losing games with the purpose of getting a higher pick in the draft. You can either trade away your veteran players and get picks or younger players or let the rookies and our younger players play and we will lose games
It means playing younger guys and watching them develop. Like what the astros are doing. You think if we take out scola/martin we will only lose 5 or 6 more games? I think wed lose 15 or 20 more games. They give us most of the scoring. I think management knows if we play young guys who won't win games, not many people will come to fill up the seats. See some of the other rebuilding teams.
I can guarnatee you les didn't bring in kmac to let young players play and lose games. Why do you think we made a push for gasol? We are trying to win now, and even with this lineup they will continue with that approach.
How was Hakeem aquired? Answer: Tanking Ralph Sampson: Tanking Rodney McCray: Tanking See a trend and while Ralph and Rodney picks didn't work out as planned they were able to trade them for pieces that contributed to a championship. Tanking probably would've worked if not for drug suspensions/ Ralphs knee problems.
That's the problem. The draft is a crapshoot. Way too many unknown quantities. Hel, Calvin Murphy was a second-rounder and he's in the Hall of Fame. Meanwhile, Michael Olowokandi is probably sitting at some desk job...to say nothing of LaRue Martin.
it's when your team sucks and try to pat yourself on the back by saying it's ok because it's on purpose
Playing the 09 busts BIG minutes as I've said before so you can tank, see if they're worth keeping, and showcase them for tradebait.