Discussing a quality product on the court (poll)

[Superman]

Then give it another name, please. I call it "tanking" with the quotes to indicate that it is the first definition above and not the second. Referring to it as tanking is a nice, quick, easy reference that most people understand. Feel free to come up with a better name, but until then, we'll just have to use the one we've got and the one that is generally accepted around here.

Actually, I think a lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what "tanking" is. Some people think that it means throwing games for the sake of a higher draft pick ("throwing games" could mean any number of things, but pretty much means that you intentionally lose when you could actually win). Some think it refers to sitting your best players at the end of the season when you're not going to make the playoffs (ala the Celtics when they sat Paul Pierce last season).

I don't think tanking is the best term to use, unless you're talking about Paul Crewe type behavior. I think it's clear that no one wants to see their team lose; no team wants to lose. But if you have a plan that requires you suffer through some bad times for the sake of enjoying some good times, then you should execute that plan. I think the Grizzlies are in better position than the Knicks, even though the Knicks have more talent and might win more games.

Of course, another aspect is the execution of your long-term plan, and ours has not been good thus far; in fact, I have often wondered aloud if we even had one. The Bibby trade seems to be a beacon of hope, but I'll reserve my giddiness until I see what we look like going into training camp.

 

[fnordius]

Actually, I think a lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what "tanking" is.

Yep! Look at what Brick posted a few minutes ago...

I don't know when exactly you claim to have become a fan but we PRECISELY tanked to build that team that went to the Finals. '97-'98 season was thrown on the fire, assets were traded away, salary cap room freed (to sign Vlade) and we sprialed down the stretch to secure the pcik that brought us JWill (and could have brought us Pierce or Dirk).

That was what I meant by not even the mods agreeing on a definition. Brick is saying that we "PRECISELY tanked," while VF21 and Mr. Citrus are saying that what he refers to is NOT tanking. And that's just 3 opinions. Kingsfans posters probably have at least 15 or 20 slightly different definitions going, which makes the word pretty useless.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's clear, just from posts in the last 2 hours, that not even the moderators here agree on the definition of "tanking," so we can be 100% sure that the rest of us don't agree about it either. Using that word would do nothing but to create confusion and misunderstandings. It wasn't what this poll was about, anyway.

Then I'll make it easy for you: you're wrong, I'm right.

uolj, I gave you another term to use; if you don't want to accept it, that's not my shortcoming. Tanking is cheating the system. Trading players to give more playing time to prospects is NOT tanking, and it's NOT cheating the system, that's how a rebuild is supposed to be done.

 

[uolj]

uolj, I gave you another term to use; if you don't want to accept it, that's not my shortcoming. Tanking is cheating the system. Trading players to give more playing time to prospects is NOT tanking, and it's NOT cheating the system, that's how a rebuild is supposed to be done.

I didn't see it. Would you mind repeating it for me? "Rebuilding" doesn't work because there are other (in our opinion less successful) methods of rebuilding.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I agree that trading talent for expirings and playing your young talent to grow them and to get game situation talent evaluation is not tanking. My local team did that for two years, lost a lot of games and got some nice talent through draft and trades. Its starting to pay dividends and the city is really excited about the team.

The organization really has to have a strong stomach to do this though - not only is it extremely high risk, but you're going to have half empty arenas frequently. I saw the Mavs and the Cavs for free a season or two ago along with a handful of other games. One of the most explosive offenses in the league and the league's top young player - free ticket, decent seats (2nd level club section) with some food thrown in. These were Sunday games too, not some mid-week affair. And they were giving away these tickets in blocks of 4 or 8 at a time.

For an organization like Sacramento that prides itself on "the best fans in the league" that's going to be a bitter pill to swallow. But 2 or 3 down years for 10 great ones is worth it in the end.

 

[Superman]

But 2 or 3 down years for 10 great ones is worth it in the end.

Especially if, in your effort to avoid down years, you doom yourself to them anyways. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Hey, I don't mind if the team tanks, but I bet team veterans might. If I don't enjoy watching the Kings being drubbed by 20+ every few games, I can always change the channel. They don't get to change the channel, they have to watch every single game if they're on the bench, and their bodies are aging while we go nowhere.

Solution: Have no veterans, send them off to the glue factory or whatever.

Top free agents won't sign here unless we're either trying to be competitive, or, failing that, we overpay them. Maybe signing a top free agent is a long term goal, something we do after 2-3 years of sucking.

Hopefully, after 3 years of sucking, we'll have drafted 1 all-star talent, with 2 other guys that are solid NBA roleplayers. We will no longer suck, but we'll probably be just a touch above than mediocre. We'll make one or two big free agent signings, maybe even land a disgruntled superstar, and the net result if all goes to plan is that we climb into the medium playoff brackets, with maybe a 20% chance of winning the championship. After which we'll start to bleed talent to free agency.

I don't know if the "win now" approach has a more positive outlook, but I really hate seeing the Kings blown out by 20+ points

 

[Superman]

Hey, I don't mind if the team tanks, but I bet team veterans might. If I don't enjoy watching the Kings being drubbed by 20+ every few games, I can always change the channel. They don't get to change the channel, they have to watch every single game if they're on the bench, and their bodies are aging while we go nowhere.

Solution: Have no veterans, send them off to the glue factory or whatever.

Top free agents won't sign here unless we're either trying to be competitive, or, failing that, we overpay them. Maybe signing a top free agent is a long term goal, something we do after 2-3 years of sucking.

Hopefully, after 3 years of sucking, we'll have drafted 1 all-star talent, with 2 other guys that are solid NBA roleplayers. We will no longer suck, but we'll probably be just a touch above than mediocre. We'll make one or two big free agent signings, maybe even land a disgruntled superstar, and the net result if all goes to plan is that we climb into the medium playoff brackets, with maybe a 20% chance of winning the championship. After which we'll start to bleed talent to free agency.

I don't know if the "win now" approach has a more positive outlook, but I really hate seeing the Kings blown out by 20+ points

There are 30 teams in the NBA, each with a proportionate 3.3% chance of winning a title.A 20% chance at a championship is pretty good odds.

Would you prefer to see us go 45-37, grab the eighth seed, get bounced in the first round, pick in the 20's, spend the MLE on a middling player, and do it again the next year? That's pretty much the blueprint we've been working on for three years now.

Making the playoffs is always exciting, and it's fun to have a team that at least has a chance at getting there, but at some point you begin to want more. It takes some sucking for a while, but the hope is that you wind up better for it in the long run.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I didn't see it. Would you mind repeating it for me? "Rebuilding" doesn't work because there are other (in our opinion less successful) methods of rebuilding.

1. Who does "our" refer to?

2. Name me one of those other methods, and I'll tell you why it ain't really rebuilding.

 

[uolj]

1. Who does "our" refer to?

2. Name me one of those other methods, and I'll tell you why it ain't really rebuilding.

I guess that's your way of saying the word is "rebuild". Correct me if I'm wrong.

In my opinion "rebuild" is worse than "tank" because rebuild fails to imply the expectation that the team will not win many games and will therefore be better positioned to get a high draft pick. One can attempt a rebuild simply by changing out all the current players for new players. One might argue that Petrie has rebuilt this team from its glory years.

The alternative definitions of "tank" are things that (virtually) nobody would argue is a viable option. So therefore I would expect it to be more obvious that when people refer to tanking they are referring to the definition that for example covers what the Kings did in 1998.

By the way, "our" referred to you and I. I think we agree on that point, but perhaps I never understood your position.

If you think what Petrie has done in the last three years is not an attempt to rebuild, then we have the same problem with the word "rebuild" as we do with "tank", because it seems obvious that it is exactly what he has done.