If you were an NBA owner, would you tank games to secure a better draft pic?

[mcsluggo]

Mark Cuban Would Tank Games in Certain Situations
By Larry Brown | August 13, 2007
Posted in Category: Roundball

I hope he’s not going to get mad at me for using that headline, but I’m trying to be fair given what he shared on the radio. If I were going for the entirely sensational headline, I would have just said “Mark Cuban would tank games.” Mind you however, that when Cuban joined Michael Irvin and Mike Fisher on FOX Sports Radio, he said he would tank games in certain circumstances:

Irvin: “I can dance with you all day right there, it sounds like you’re saying I’d rather just tank a couple games, but I won’t even go there Mark, let’s move on.”

Cuban: “I’ll be the first to admit Michael, I would tank a lot of games.”

Irvin “You would tank games? Mark wait, you would tank games to get the first pick in the draft?”

Cuban: “Yes, yes see it depends on where you are.”


​

The depends on where you are has to deal with the recent history of your franchise, Cuban went on to say. For instance, Cuban argued (and I agree), that having a team stuck around 40 wins each year is the worst position a franchise can be in. Stuck on 40 wins means you’re not good enough to go far in the playoffs, and you’re not bad enough to get a great player in the lottery. So Cuban said that if his team were stuck around that area, he would want them to get better in the lottery — essentially by tanking playing younger players. Only problem … look what happened to Boston.

<<above quoted from a dallas mavs fans site ABOUT the article below>>

the source article:
http://larrybrownsports.com/2007/08/13/mark-cuban-would-tank-games-in-certain-situations/

 

[VF21]

Matk Cuban is a jerk. You can utilize your youth to facilitate a better draft pick. But to come right out and say you'd "tank" is about as dumb as thing, especially right now, as he's ever said.

 

[mcsluggo]

I actually think he is attempting to criticize the system with these statements (didn't advacate for a straight lottery, irrespective of team records, or was that someone else)

in any case, while I would hope any owner of team of whom I was a fan would have the sense to keep their fat MOUTH shut about tanking... I would also hope they would pull the trigger on actually DOING it in approppriate situations

(As a PURELY random hypothetical situation: when your team is far from the playoffs and there are 9 strong players in a draft, and the loss of 2 games could have a draft postion swing of five place (ranging from 5th to 10th))

 

[NewMonkey]

I actually think it's a matter of semantics. When bad teams shut down their vets and give young guys all the minutes toward the end of the season, they're tanking. They just don't call it that. The difference with Cuban is that he calls it what it is. I'm more interested in what people do than what they say. And yes, I would play the young guys and bench the vets on a bad team.

 

[uolj]

I actually think it's a matter of semantics. When bad teams shut down their vets and give young guys all the minutes toward the end of the season, they're tanking. They just don't call it that. The difference with Cuban is that he calls it what it is. I'm more interested in what people do than what they say. And yes, I would play the young guys and bench the vets on a bad team.

Agreed. With all the tank talk here last season, virtually every proponent of tanking was not suggesting that players and coaches try to lose.

Tanking in this context means making moves for the benefit of the team with the knowledge that they will likely lead to losses in the short term. Trading away good players for cap relief or draft picks and letting younger players play more minutes to see how they perform are two examples.

Only problem … look what happened to Boston.

Tanking worked for Boston. Not as well as they would have liked, but it still worked.

 

[VF21]

Mark Cuban is still a jerk.
































And no, tanking for Boston didn't work. Trading for Kevin Garnett via a long relationship between Ainge and McHale worked.

 

[uolj]

And no, tanking for Boston didn't work. Trading for Kevin Garnett via a long relationship between Ainge and McHale worked.

It worked even before they got Garnett.

 

[jimbodan]

I'd definitely tank, although I sure as heck wouldn't come out and say it.

Really other then completely lucking out on a lopsided trade or creating a ton of cap space and luring a top free agent, the other (and in my opinion better) way to start building is through the draft. Tanking, along with just putting together a very bad and very cheap team is the best way to get a good pick. Does it always equal getting the #1 or 2 pick? No it doesn't, anti-tankers LOVE to point at Boston and say "see tanking doesn't work". But what they fail to see is that even though Boston didn't get Oden or Durrant, they still had a top 5 pick, which can very easily lead to that superstar player. In fact according to this article http://82games.com/nbadraft2.htm the top 5 picks are far and away your best shot at a superstar.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I would tank, if that's what you want to call it... Once I'd come to the realization that I wasn't going to win the championship with the talent I had, I'd cut bait on EVERYBODY; I'd trade everybody over the age of 25 for whatever expirings I could get for them, before the trade deadline. The following offseason, I'd announce to my fanbase that we were officially in "rebuilding" mode, and ask for their patience; I'd even cut my tickets to half price for two or three years, if it wouldn't bankrupt me.

I'd sign a couple of veterans in the offseason, preferably players who had won championships, that weren't particularly stars, but were mature, and good character guys - guys like a Corliss Williamson or a Derek Fisher - that could help teach the kids how to conduct themselves, how to deal with the rigors of the NBA season, and generally how to become quality young men. I'd then hire a coach with a reputation for being a good teacher to a limited engagement, say 3-4 years, let him know what my intentions are, possibly even entice him with a front office position once his coaching tenure is up.

Then, once my team is seasoned, I make my push to get a coach with playoff pedigree, sign a couple of 5-6 year veterans that are on the brink of a breakout season to fill the team out, and go for broke.

 

[VF21]

All that's well and good, Slim, but it's not tanking. It's establishing a clear plan for rebuilding, announcing same and following through. BIG difference, IMHO, but haven't we all had this argument/discussion/debate before?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Depends on whom you ask; some people obviously feel that not playing your best players down the stretch is tanking, and I'm sure that some people feel that trading all your best players prior to the stretch run, so that you know you'll be bad is tanking, too... And that's basically what I'm saying I'd do.

 

[uolj]

All that's well and good, Slim, but it's not tanking. It's establishing a clear plan for rebuilding, announcing same and following through. BIG difference, IMHO, but haven't we all had this argument/discussion/debate before?

Whether you or I or S£im think it is tanking or not, I believe that is what Cuban and most others are referring to with that term.

 

[hrdboild]

Yeah I don't think anyone wants to take tanking to the level of intentionally losing ball games. It's more a matter of intentionally putting yourself in a position where it's going to be really tough to win. If that means letting your injured veterans "rest" longer than usual or trading for expiring contracts and young players or just flat out not playing your stud players for very many minutes, it's technically not compromising the integrity of the game.

The issue last season was that so many teams were quite obviously not putting their best foot forward that no one wanted to watch the games anymore. People are willing to ignore tanking when it's one or two teams, but when it's practically a third of the league like it was last year, people start talking about changing the lottery system.

 

[chrisnu]

All that's well and good, Slim, but it's not tanking. It's establishing a clear plan for rebuilding, announcing same and following through. BIG difference, IMHO, but haven't we all had this argument/discussion/debate before?

I agree with this. There's a difference between rebuilding (trading quality players for prospects and cap relief) and the sucking (not having the talent to win games) which may result, and tanking by not playing your quality players, or simply not playing hard. If you have a team of kids who play hard every night, and only win 20 games, that's a huge difference from resting your proven veterans during crunch time, or not demanding effort from your players.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The issue last season was that so many teams were quite obviously not putting their best foot forward that no one wanted to watch the games anymore...

I will strongly disagree with this on a personal level. To me, it's even more compelling to watch a team trying to tank, especially when they're playing against another team trying to tank... My favorite game from season before last (not counting Kings games) was the game where Memphis and the Clippers played each other down the stretch, where the winner was going to get Dallas on the road in the first round, and the loser got a much weaker Denver team at home... The subplot hidden subtext of watching two coaches trying to lose whilst simultaneously "trying to win" made the game unbelievably entertaining to me.

 

[Bricklayer]

I will strongly disagree with this on a personal level. To me, it's even more compelling to watch a team trying to tank, especially when they're playing against another team trying to tank... My favorite game from season before last (not counting Kings games) was the game where Memphis and the Clippers played each other down the stretch, where the winner was going to get Dallas on the road in the first round, and the loser got a much weaker Denver team at home... The subplot hidden subtext of watching two coaches trying to lose whilst simultaneously "trying to win" made the game unbelievably entertaining to me.

I have forgotten the details, but I remember a game last year when we played Boston, I think in Boston, where Doc Rivers made such a string of atrocious decisions and substitutions in the 4th quarter that there simply could be no doubt. It think my eyebrows raised so high they may have ended up on the back of my head as he just completely gave us the game.

 

[Alacron]

I have forgotten the details, but I remember a game last year when we played Boston, I think in Boston, where Doc Rivers made such a string of atrocious decisions and substitutions in the 4th quarter that there simply could be no doubt. It think my eyebrows raised so high they may have ended up on the back of my head as he just completely gave us the game.

I bet Musselman didn't even realize it at the time... he just thought, "Aha! I'm outsmarting him!"


On tanking: I would not want my players or coaches to intentionally throw any games.

That is the responsibility of the owner and GM. When they decide that it's more advantageous to try for a high draft pick, they should make the appropriate moves, constructing a team that is likely to win little while giving young guys lots of experience. The fact that Cuban was honest about it I don't think is something deserving of criticism.
~~

 

[JJ_Evans]

He's stupid for speaking the truth? When you franchise isn't going anywhere and you have the chance to draft a player that comes around once a decade, why not?