PDA

View Full Version : Ex-coach Lucas: Cavs tanked to draft LeBron



vnzla81
01-14-2010, 03:06 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4825853


Cavs owner disputes Lucas' claimsComment Email Print Share ESPN.com news services

Did the Cleveland Cavaliers tank the 2002-03 season to ensure a better shot at drafting LeBron James? Former Cavs coach John Lucas, who was fired during that season, said he believes that's the case, according to a published report.

"They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,'' Lucas told AOL FanHouse. "I didn't have a chance. ... You can't fault the Cavaliers for wanting to get LeBron. It was hard to get free agents to come there.''

The Cavaliers finished the 2002-03 season with a 17-65 record, tied with the Denver Nuggets for the worst record in the NBA. Cleveland won the NBA's draft lottery and selected James with the No. 1 pick. Lucas was fired midway through that season.

Gordon Gund, who was then the team's principal owner but is now a minority owner of the Cavs, denied Lucas' claims. He also told the Web site that the Cavaliers weren't for sale during that season. The team didn't get sold until 2005.

"You don't try to get the No. 1 pick,'' Gund told AOL Fanhouse. "That's why the lottery was designed. To not allow that. We had a young team that we were developing. ... We did not tank the season. ... To lose to get LeBron James, we would never do that. I wouldn't do that. I couldn't do that.

"In the very last game of the season, we had nothing to gain and we were in sole possession of last place [in the NBA]. But we beat [the Toronto Raptors] and that left us tied with Denver [at 17-65]. ... The chances of getting the first pick were only [22.5 percent].''

Lucas, now an assistant coach with the Los Angeles Clippers, will face his former team for the first time since being fired in 2003 when the Cavaliers host the Clippers on Saturday.

Lucas said he was ordered to play young players.

Guard Ricky Davis, who was a member of that Cavs team and is now a member of the Clippers said that Lucas was in a no-win situation.

"It was tough on [Lucas],'' Davis told AOL Fanhouse. "They were forcing him to lose and I know it's nothing he wanted to do. It's just the position he was forced in. But it's tough. ... It worked, whatever they did [to get James] so it's hard to knock them. They got what they wanted. But it was hard on Luke.''

Lucas also questioned the trades made by the Cavaliers during that season.

"Andre [Miller] was really coming into his own and we trade him [to the Clippers] for Darius Miles, who had a bad knee, and Harold Jamison, who [was waived],'' Lucas told AOL Fanhouse. "We traded Lamond Murray, who averaged [a team-best 16.6] points, [to the Raptors] for Yogi Stewart, who was on the [injured] list. We traded Wesley Person for the 49th pick, which was Matt Barnes ... So I couldn't win.''

Gund defended the trades, which were made by then-general manager Jim Paxson.

"I agreed with the trades,'' Gund told AOL Fanhouse. "Andre was one that we really wanted but he wanted a max salary [when he would become a restricted free agent in 2002] and we didn't think he deserved a max at that time because he hadn't shown being an All-Star.

"We all liked Andre. But Lamond Murray was not a key player. He and Wesley didn't have anywhere near the seasons they had [in 2001-02] after that.''

Lucas was fired after the Cavaliers started 8-34. Gund pointed out to AOL Fanhouse that if the team was truly trying to lose games, then why would it fire Lucas?

"I just didn't think the chemistry was good. The players weren't responding to John,'' Gund told the Web site. "This is not a criticism of John. I like John.''

Lance George
01-14-2010, 03:08 PM
Kudos to them. It worked out well.

90'sNBARocked
01-14-2010, 03:10 PM
[QUOTE=vnzla81;945050]http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4825853


Cavs owner disputes Lucas' claimsComment Email Print Share ESPN.com news services

Did the Cleveland Cavaliers tank the 2002-03 season to ensure a better shot at drafting LeBron James? Former Cavs coach John Lucas, who was fired during that season, said he believes that's the case, according to a published report.

"They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,'' Lucas told AOL FanHouse. "I didn't have a chance. ... You can't fault the Cavaliers for wanting to get LeBron. It was hard to get free agents to come there.''


Great find!

Unfortunatley I think he is being truthful, but as Boston can attest too(When they didnt get the top pick to draft Duncan even though they had the worst record)

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 03:10 PM
Kudos to them. It worked out well.

I agree, at least they had the nuts to say screw it, lets tank and see if we can draft a good player and if that guy is Lebron is even better.

BillS
01-14-2010, 03:13 PM
I agree, at least they had the nuts to say screw it, lets tank and see if we can draft a good player and if that guy is Lebron is even better.

It sounds almost like a given from the "or sell the team" comment that if they had not gotten LeBron there would be no Cleveland team. Is that really what fans in Cleveland wanted?

count55
01-14-2010, 03:14 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ESyTVnxxrPc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ESyTVnxxrPc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 03:17 PM
It sounds almost like a given from the "or sell the team" comment that if they had not gotten LeBron there would be no Cleveland team. Is that really what fans in Cleveland wanted?

Cleveland knew that they had a chance to either get Lebron, Melo, Wade, Bosh or even the draft bust Milicic and I could say that now many cleveland fans are saying that it was worth it.

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm sorry, but Lucas sounds like a crybaby here.

-- Steve --

sportfireman
01-14-2010, 03:24 PM
ok seriously who here wouldn't tank for the next Michael Jordan come on really?!!!!:rolleyes:

BillS
01-14-2010, 03:40 PM
Seriously, how many "next Michael Jordan"s have there been that turned out not to be?

CableKC
01-14-2010, 03:45 PM
I guess I can file this under "duh, really Captain Obvious? Thanks for the FYI"

sportfireman
01-14-2010, 03:56 PM
Seriously, how many "next Michael Jordan"s have there been that turned out not to be?

it's the lottery if you wanna win one day you have to play.

just like John Wall he could be the next AI or the next DaJuan Wagner

Brad8888
01-14-2010, 04:05 PM
Plausible tanking, coupled with plausible deniability FTW.

BillS
01-14-2010, 04:09 PM
it's the lottery if you wanna win one day you have to play.

It's the number of "days" you have to play without winning that's the problem.

sportfireman
01-14-2010, 04:13 PM
It's the number of "days" you have to play without winning that's the problem.

but those are the lotto rules......

d_c
01-14-2010, 04:32 PM
Of course they tanked, LOL.

And of course the owner would never admit it. They'd get in trouble with Stern, and even perhaps the US government.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2010, 04:52 PM
I'm sorry, but Lucas sounds like a crybaby here.

-- Steve --
Completely. Gund makes compelling points right down the line for every move, including winning the game to end up tied with Denver. They didn't need to be worst considering the depth of the draft anyway.


Did you ever play organized sports as a kid? Was there a worst team, maybe even your team? Was there ever a team that didn't win a single game? That wasn't tanking to get the top pick and it looked 100% identical. Just as bad. What motivation did that 0-20 or 2-15 or whatever team in the YMCA bball league or Little League baseball league have for losing so much?

It's sports, it's a game, and you 100% must have winners and losers. Sometimes teams lose because they aren't good enough to win, period.

Lucas doesn't have the track record to say that he normally would be a big winner but was hamstrung that year. As Gund points out, why fire Lucas when you could pull the JOB angle and just ride out the losing instead.

Seems like if that was ownerships goal there would at least be an implicit understanding, if not an outright explicit one.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2010, 05:34 PM
it's the lottery if you wanna win one day you have to play.
Said the Lakers....whoops. Guess that's not actually the only way to win.

And the Lakers didn't even have to get superbad to get good again. In fact I'm still waiting on the Bulls rebuild to pan out, or the multi-decade plan of the Clippers to work.

BTW, the Cavs haven't won. Miami won with a pick lower than Lebron was. Then they stunk again, now they have another top pick and they've been modestly okay. That's TWO top 5 picks, and in their 2nd year they still don't seem poised to win it.

Of course the Blazers got their title...wait, nope.

OKC though, clearly they can't fail. They are following the Baby Bulls and New Orleans Hornets path and are right on track to ramp up expectations and then not quite ever pan out.

Speaking of the Bulls, they are on round 2 of the magic rebuild. With their #1 pick plus high draft guys Thomas and Noah they are favorites to win the East this year, right?


So you win the lottery, draft a GOOD player, and you still don't win a title. Meanwhile a couple of other teams make smart trades and touch up with FA work, don't tank to accomplish this, and they win titles - see LA and Detroit.

duke dynamite
01-14-2010, 05:37 PM
So you win the lottery, draft a GOOD player, and you still don't win a title. Meanwhile a couple of other teams make smart trades and touch up with FA work, don't tank to accomplish this, and they win titles.
:king:

ChicagoJ
01-14-2010, 05:38 PM
They won 29, 30, and 32 games in the three preceeding seasons. Its not like they were a good team anyway.

sportfireman
01-14-2010, 08:15 PM
Said the Lakers....whoops. Guess that's not actually the only way to win.

And the Lakers didn't even have to get superbad to get good again. In fact I'm still waiting on the Bulls rebuild to pan out, or the multi-decade plan of the Clippers to work.

BTW, the Cavs haven't won. Miami won with a pick lower than Lebron was. Then they stunk again, now they have another top pick and they've been modestly okay. That's TWO top 5 picks, and in their 2nd year they still don't seem poised to win it.

Of course the Blazers got their title...wait, nope.

OKC though, clearly they can't fail. They are following the Baby Bulls and New Orleans Hornets path and are right on track to ramp up expectations and then not quite ever pan out.

Speaking of the Bulls, they are on round 2 of the magic rebuild. With their #1 pick plus high draft guys Thomas and Noah they are favorites to win the East this year, right?


So you win the lottery, draft a GOOD player, and you still don't win a title. Meanwhile a couple of other teams make smart trades and touch up with FA work, don't tank to accomplish this, and they win titles - see LA and Detroit.


believe me i know all this........just look all the top lottery teams over the last 10 yrs........ not many are too good. my post was referring to some comments earlier. if you want a great #1 pick in the draft then you have to play lotto..... it's all about odds with the lotto.

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Said the Lakers....whoops. Guess that's not actually the only way to win.

And the Lakers didn't even have to get superbad to get good again. In fact I'm still waiting on the Bulls rebuild to pan out, or the multi-decade plan of the Clippers to work.

BTW, the Cavs haven't won. Miami won with a pick lower than Lebron was. Then they stunk again, now they have another top pick and they've been modestly okay. That's TWO top 5 picks, and in their 2nd year they still don't seem poised to win it.

Of course the Blazers got their title...wait, nope.

OKC though, clearly they can't fail. They are following the Baby Bulls and New Orleans Hornets path and are right on track to ramp up expectations and then not quite ever pan out.

Speaking of the Bulls, they are on round 2 of the magic rebuild. With their #1 pick plus high draft guys Thomas and Noah they are favorites to win the East this year, right?


So you win the lottery, draft a GOOD player, and you still don't win a title. Meanwhile a couple of other teams make smart trades and touch up with FA work, don't tank to accomplish this, and they win titles - see LA and Detroit.

So I guess that a team like San Antonio does not count, they got Duncan(by tanking)Tony Parker and Manu trough the draft, the Celtics had pieces that they got from the draft and used them to get KG and Ray, yes I think the draft does not work at all.

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 09:17 PM
So I guess that a team like San Antonio does not count, they got Duncan(by tanking).

Let me be as clear as possible here, the Spurs did not tank anything that year. That was a very much an injury riddled team. David Robinson played 6 games. They had 12 different guys start a game that year. They had 9 guys who started at least 20 games.

They just lucked into the position by having an injury riddled year. They did not tank. Either way, Seth's point was that having a top draft pick isn't the ONLY way to build a winner, and he's right. However I do think it's more difficult without those top picks. Not many teams are going to get a Kobe for Divac trade very often.

-- Steve --

judicata
01-14-2010, 09:22 PM
So I guess that a team like San Antonio does not count, they got Duncan(by tanking)Tony Parker and Manu trough the draft, the Celtics had pieces that they got from the draft and used them to get KG and Ray, yes I think the draft does not work at all.

Really? Parker (28th) and Manu (57th) show the power of getting a high draft pick? The Spurs are the poster children of smart GMs, not tanking.

Allen was had for a couple of journeymen and a 5th overall. No player exchanged for Garnett was drafted higher than 13th.

The only thing those team prove is that you don't need to tank to build a team, you just have to be smart and not throw away assets.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2010, 09:23 PM
Sure, if you want the best of the bad odds of winning the lotto then you must be worst.




They won 29, 30, and 32 games in the three preceeding seasons. Its not like they were a good team anyway.
No. You've got to think long term Jay, stop being so nearsighted on this.

What you do is lose for 20 years, have your top pick get injured, hit the 25% odds on the lottery in just the right year because you've been scouting a kid since 7th grade and have subliminally told him to come out rather than going to college or staying a 2nd or 3rd year in college.

Team with 2nd pick in draft after Duncan's JR year for the loss.*






*It was Toronto. They took Camby instead of getting AI or Duncan if Tim had come out.

PS - 1997 for worst draft ever if Duncan did come out the year before.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2010, 09:41 PM
So I guess that a team like San Antonio does not count, they got Duncan(by tanking)Tony Parker and Manu trough the draft, the Celtics had pieces that they got from the draft and used them to get KG and Ray, yes I think the draft does not work at all.
We are talking about the LOTTERY, and specifically the top 1 or 2 picks only. And the Spurs didn't tank, their freaking superstar David Robinson was injured all year.

Where did Parker get taken? Hint - the Pacers got Tinsley with the traded pick right before him.
Where did Manu get taken? Hint - it wasn't round 1


The Celtics are good one to bring up. How did they get that #5 pick (Jeff Green) that they traded for Ray Allen? By LOSING THE LOTTERY.

Now sure, Ray Allen is classic. But the Celtics tanked away, got the 5th pick instead of #2 (2nd worst record) and lost out on KEVIN DURANT.

The pick they used to get Garnett? THE #15 pick of Jefferson.

PS - one of the main keys to them winning isn't KG or Allen, but Rajon Rondo and where was he drafted? Hint - the Pacers passed on him to take Shawne Williams.


And Paul Pierce - the 10th pick.

So the Celtics actually used the 10th, 15th and 21st** picks to assemble 3/4ths of their title team. The only high lottery pick came when they lost the chance to get Durant and settled for trading for Ray Allen with 2-3 good years left.


**They got the 21st pick with a FUTURE first round pick and Brian freaking Grant.

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 09:57 PM
We are talking about the LOTTERY, and specifically the top 1 or 2 picks only. And the Spurs didn't tank, their freaking superstar David Robinson was injured all year.

Where did Parker get taken? Hint - the Pacers got Tinsley with the traded pick right before him.
Where did Manu get taken? Hint - it wasn't round 1


The Celtics are good one to bring up. How did they get that #5 pick (Jeff Green) that they traded for Ray Allen? By LOSING THE LOTTERY.

Now sure, Ray Allen is classic. But the Celtics tanked away, got the 5th pick instead of #2 (2nd worst record) and lost out on KEVIN DURANT.

The pick they used to get Garnett? THE #15 pick of Jefferson.

PS - one of the main keys to them winning isn't KG or Allen, but Rajon Rondo and where was he drafted? Hint - the Pacers passed on him to take Shawne Williams.


And Paul Pierce - the 10th pick.

So the Celtics actually used the 10th, 15th and 21st** picks to assemble 3/4ths of their title team. The only high lottery pick came when they lost the chance to get Durant and settled for trading for Ray Allen with 2-3 good years left.


**They got the 21st pick with a FUTURE first round pick and Brian freaking Grant.

Im not just talking about the 1st or 2nd pick Im talking about a pick below 10th and I disagree that San Antonio did not tank, everybody knows they did.

BornReady
01-14-2010, 10:41 PM
lol whatever
whats done is done

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 10:44 PM
Im not just talking about the 1st or 2nd pick Im talking about a pick below 10th and I disagree that San Antonio did not tank, everybody knows they did.

Actually everyone doesn't "know" they did. These were there top 10 players in minutes played that year in order from most minutes, to least.

- Avery Johnson
- Vinny Del Negro
- Vernon Maxwell
- Dominique Wilkins (37 years old, retired the next year)
- Will Perdue
- Carl Herrera
- Greg Anderson
- Corey Alexander
- Sean Elliot
- Monty Williams

=====

You really think that rag tag group of players should have been winners, but they TANKED? Puh-lease.

-- Steve --

Will Galen
01-14-2010, 11:09 PM
Completely. Gund makes compelling points right down the line for every move, including winning the game to end up tied with Denver. They didn't need to be worst considering the depth of the draft anyway.

They tanked! I believed they were tanking when it happened and I still believe it.

As for winning the last game, that was the players. Management can't expect players to tank and you really don't want them to, but management can do things that make it harder for a team to win.

"As Gund points out, why fire Lucas when you could pull the JOB angle and just ride out the losing instead."
For the reason I thought at the time, Lucas was trying to hard to win, and management didn't like it.

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 11:16 PM
They tanked! I believed they were tanking when it happened and I still believe it.

As for winning the last game, that was the players. Management can't expect players to tank and you really don't want them to, but management can do things that make it harder for a team to win.

That's usually what we call "rebuilding" .... why do the Cavs get stuck with the "tanked" label? Because they got a once in a lifetime player out of it and people are jealous? I don't get it. I'm being serious. Were the Timberwolves tanking when they traded KG then? That was a management move that made it harder to win.

-- Steve --

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 11:23 PM
Actually everyone doesn't "know" they did. These were there top 10 players in minutes played that year in order from most minutes, to least.

- Avery Johnson
- Vinny Del Negro
- Vernon Maxwell
- Dominique Wilkins (37 years old, retired the next year)
- Will Perdue
- Carl Herrera
- Greg Anderson
- Corey Alexander
- Sean Elliot
- Monty Williams

=====

You really think that rag tag group of players should have been winners, but they TANKED? Puh-lease.

-- Steve --

come on man, teams that tank always put a crappy team on the floor because they know that even if those guys play hard they are never going to win, just look and the nets now, new york and the clippers last year and miami the year before.

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 11:32 PM
come on man, teams that tank always put a crappy team on the floor because they know that even if those guys play hard they are never going to win, just look and the nets now, new york and the clippers last year and miami the year before.

This makes absolutely no sense at all what so ever. Unless your definition of "tanking" is just not being good or getting unlucky with injuries.

I think that may be the problem, you don't understand the concept of what tanking really is.

-- Steve --

vnzla81
01-14-2010, 11:39 PM
This makes absolutely no sense at all what so ever. Unless your definition of "tanking" is just not being good or getting unlucky with injuries.

I think that may be the problem, you don't understand the concept of what tanking really is.

-- Steve --

there is many ways of tanking, you can have your All Star player hurt for a long period and when he is ready to come back you tell him to sit and tell him don't worry (Miami two years ago and the Spurs that year) and then you trade whatever you have for cap space and get a bunch of D leaguers Miami again. I am not saying that the pacers should tank Im just saying that they should stop with this nonsense of going to the playoffs by no giving minutes to the young players for the sake of trying to make it to the playoffs

Will Galen
01-14-2010, 11:39 PM
Really? Parker (28th) and Manu (57th) show the power of getting a high draft pick? The Spurs are the poster children of smart GMs, not tanking.


And how far would they have got with out Robinson and Duncan?

Good management is a must, but if you want a title you have to get lucky too. But the luck doesn't have to come from the lottery.

Pacersfan46
01-14-2010, 11:52 PM
there is many ways of tanking, you can have your All Star player hurt for a long period and when he is ready to come back you tell him to sit and tell him don't worry (Miami two years ago and the Spurs that year) and then you trade whatever you have for cap space and get a bunch of D leaguers Miami again.

They told Robinson to sit out? Actually David Robinson came back from an injury in early December and fractured his foot in his 6th game back. According to your theory he just wouldn't have come back at all from the injury he had in the preseason. Again, nothing points to tanking that year.

Please inform me of these trades for D-Leaguers, because I apparently missed them. Unless you're telling me the Shaq trade is what you're talking about for the Heat ... and calling Shawn Marion a D Leaguer. Not like that Shaq carried Phoenix anywhere anyway. And Dwayne Wade played 50 games that year himself. The certainly didn't hold him out too much extra time from his injury.

It's like you're a serious conspiracy theorist. Every injury, or team that's not good = tanking. You'll have to really explain what these teams did that constitutes the tanking label, because I'm not seeing it. And trading players for cap space is usually called "rebuilding". Entirely different.

-- Steve --

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 12:59 AM
They told Robinson to sit out? Actually David Robinson came back from an injury in early December and fractured his foot in his 6th game back. According to your theory he just wouldn't have come back at all from the injury he had in the preseason. Again, nothing points to tanking that year.

Please inform me of these trades for D-Leaguers, because I apparently missed them. Unless you're telling me the Shaq trade is what you're talking about for the Heat ... and calling Shawn Marion a D Leaguer. Not like that Shaq carried Phoenix anywhere anyway. And Dwayne Wade played 50 games that year himself. The certainly didn't hold him out too much extra time from his injury.

It's like you're a serious conspiracy theorist. Every injury, or team that's not good = tanking. You'll have to really explain what these teams did that constitutes the tanking label, because I'm not seeing it. And trading players for cap space is usually called "rebuilding". Entirely different.

-- Steve --

you call it rebuilding I call it tanking, we agree to disagree.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Actually everyone doesn't "know" they did. These were there top 10 players in minutes played that year in order from most minutes, to least.

- Avery Johnson
- Vinny Del Negro
- Vernon Maxwell
- Dominique Wilkins (37 years old, retired the next year)
- Will Perdue
- Carl Herrera
- Greg Anderson
- Corey Alexander
- Sean Elliot
- Monty Williams

=====

You really think that rag tag group of players should have been winners, but they TANKED? Puh-lease.

-- Steve --

Flip it around. Because its true that Bo Hill had them in the WCFs and WC Semi's with 59 and 62 wins during the preceding two seasons.

And then:

David Robinson, their starting C, missed 76 games/ played in 6 games.
Chuck Person, their starting PF, missed 82 games/ played in 0 games.
Sean Elliott, thier staring SF, missed 43 games/ played in 39 games.
Charles Smith, thier primary front-court sub, missed 63 games/ played in 19 games.

That is 64 out of 328 games played by the team's primary front-court players. (Less than 19%).

There is tanking. And there is "decimated by injuries." The Spurs were most certainly not tanking.

Bball
01-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Flip it around. Because its true that Bo Hill had them in the WCFs and WC Semi's with 59 and 62 wins during the preceding two seasons.

And then:

David Robinson, their starting C, missed 76 games/ played in 6 games.
Chuck Person, their starting PF, missed 82 games/ played in 0 games.
Sean Elliott, thier staring SF, missed 43 games/ played in 39 games.
Charles Smith, thier primary front-court sub, missed 63 games/ played in 19 games.

That is 64 out of 328 games played by the team's primary front-court players. (Less than 19%).

There is tanking. And there is "decimated by injuries." The Spurs were most certainly not tanking.

I think I've asked this before... But were any of these players out all year definitely with their injury... or was there a point where the season was lost but a player could've returned but didn't (to facilitate maintaining the losing pace)?

BillS
01-15-2010, 01:03 PM
you call it rebuilding I call it tanking, we agree to disagree.

Not semantically equivalent in the least.

"rebuilding" is trading away veterans and bringing in players who aren't capable of a winning season but are working to get there.

"tanking" is benching players who are capable of a winning season or otherwise interfering with the current ability of the team in order to take a dive.

One is acceptable and sportsmanlike. The other is not, and more often than not will blow up in your face.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 01:13 PM
I think I've asked this before... But were any of these players out all year definitely with their injury... or was there a point where the season was lost but a player could've returned but didn't (to facilitate maintaining the losing pace)?

Elliott tore his ACL mid-season. So he was out.

Chuck was back in Indianapolis paying for Roger Brown's funeral after his back surgery. Remember seeing him then - forty pounds overweight and walking with a cane? I can't believe he ever played again. The surgery was described as season-ending, and possibly career-threatening when he had it in October. What's more surprising was that he played 80 games after the airplane accident before having surgery during the next training camp.

Charles Smith got hurt in early November, finally returned in March, and started the five of the final eight games (they were 1-4 in the games he started).

The controversial one is David: perhaps he could have returned in late March or early April. He would not have been 100%, so there was risk of re-re-re-reinjuring it, and it wasn't worth the risk since they were lottery-bound anyway.

BillS
01-15-2010, 01:25 PM
The controversial one is David: perhaps he could have returned in late March or early April. He would not have been 100%, so there was risk of re-re-re-reinjuring it, and it wasn't worth the risk since they were lottery-bound anyway.

And just to be clear, I don't think this kind of move is tanking, because there is a valid reason outside of losing for holding the player out.

I think most players have trouble hiding when they think they can play but aren't being allowed as opposed to when they can't play.

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 01:32 PM
Not semantically equivalent in the least.

1)"rebuilding" is trading away veterans and bringing in players who aren't capable of a winning season but are working to get there.
2)"tanking" is benching players who are capable of a winning season or otherwise interfering with the current ability of the team in order to take a dive.

One is acceptable and sportsmanlike. The other is not, and more often than not will blow up in your face.

I am sorry man but I am not as good in writing as many people here:blush: english is not my first language, so sometimes is hard for me to explain things the same way you guys do, I agree with you here, the issue I have here is that there are teams that tank in differerent ways you can call it "rebuilding" like Miami did two years ago, when you could see Pat Riley scouting players since January(D Rose), I know, you can tell me that D wade,Alonso and Haslem were hurt the thing is that there were times when D wade was ready to come back but the season was already lost so they decided to let him rest for the rest of the season and then they filled all those positions with either D leaguers or free agents and they end up winning like 15 games or some like that.

I would not mind if the Pacer decided to trade all their big contracts players for expirings and let their rookies and second year players play, the issue here is that the pacers are not getting better and by playing the older players just for the sake of making the playoffs is going to push the rebuilding process even forward, maybe two or three more years or mediocrity. I know that some guys here are expecting the pacers to get one or two big free agents in two years when they get all that money in cap space, the issue here that they always forget is that free agents don't want to go to small market teams and if they do, you need to overpay(see Detroit) they signed two "big free agents" and now they don't have much cap space and are not better than the pacers.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 01:42 PM
I would not mind if the Pacer decided to trade all their big contracts players for expirings and let their rookies and second year players play, the issue here is that the pacers are not getting better and by playing the older players just for the sake of making the playoffs is going to push the rebuilding process even forward, maybe two or three more years or mediocrity. I know that some guys here are expecting the pacers to get one or two big free agents in two years when they get all that money in cap space, the issue here that they always forget is that free agents don't want to go to small market teams and if they do, you need to overpay(see Detroit) they signed two "big free agents" and now they don't have much cap space and are not better than the pacers.

High draft pick aside, what does pushing the playoffs hinder? Because from what I am seeing that all of our players besides Foster are "healthy".

This means that Tyler, AJ and both Roy and Brandon are getting some pretty consistent playing time and are contributing. A.K.A. "developing". Yes, I intentionally left out McRoberts, but consistently playing 4 out of 5 young players isn't bad. So looking at it now, things are looking like we have a healthy balance of playing who we have now, and who we will have in the future. Just placing the players out on the floor and letting them "go at it" is not going to develop anything. They need to be in an environment where their skills can be assessed properly with little chance of their asses getting kicked night after night.

What kind of sizable measurement could you express when these young guys can't even get a chance to develop themselves in a playoff atmosphere? I mean if they are just playing for the regular season, how will they be able to understand that they have to amplify their games to a higher level?

Regular season rotational minutes doesn't teach that. Sure, most of these guys have seen an NCAA tournament or two, heck they've even won one. But that doesn't make up for lack of experience in the NBA Playoffs.

Young players are impressionable. You don't want them going into their first couple of years thinking that the NBA is all about losing. They need structure and discipline. They need to be reminded of their mistakes, and sometimes taken out of the game. Learning what not to do, and what can get you benched later on in your career is part of the developing process.

This current path we are on could either yield us positive results, or damn us into the lottery.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 01:49 PM
And just to be clear, I don't think this kind of move is tanking, because there is a valid reason outside of losing for holding the player out.

I think most players have trouble hiding when they think they can play but aren't being allowed as opposed to when they can't play.

I believe they were already mathematically eliminated so it was a no-brainer. Someone would probably need to dig up a print edition of SI or something. As an unashamed Rifleman fan, I payed some attention to the Spurs on the League Pass back then, but not that particular season since Chuck was out.

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 01:54 PM
High draft pick aside, what does pushing the playoffs hinder? Because from what I am seeing that all of our players besides Foster are "healthy".

This means that Tyler, AJ and both Roy and Brandon are getting some pretty consistent playing time and are contributing. A.K.A. "developing". Yes, I intentionally left out McRoberts, but consistently playing 4 out of 5 young players isn't bad. So looking at it now, things are looking like we have a healthy balance of playing who we have now, and who we will have in the future.

What kind of sizable measurement could you express when these young guys can't even get a chance to develop themselves in a playoff atmosphere? I mean if they are just playing for the regular season, how will they be able to understand that they have to amplify their games to a higher level?

Regular season rotational minutes doesn't teach that. Sure, most of these guys have seen an NCAA tournament or two, heck they've even won one. But that doesn't make up for lack of experience in the NBA Playoffs.

This current path we are on could either yield us positive results, or damn us into the lottery.

I undestand your point here, the issue is that if this team gets lucky enough to make it to the playoffs and knowing how JOB is been coaching for the last two years, he would put "the best team that gives him a chance to win" meaning that we are going to see more Watson(gone), Head(gone), Danny(future), Troy(not part of the future),Foster(not part of the future) and he is going to sit the rookies and the second year players because they don't have the experience necessary to play in the playoffs limitating their minutes.

BillS
01-15-2010, 01:58 PM
I am sorry man but I am not as good in writing as many people here:blush: english is not my first language, so sometimes is hard for me to explain things the same way you guys do

I forget, since you usually express yourself so well.

I think the subtlety you may be missing is that the word "tanking" is a very negative word, as it really means making an effort to lose instead of win. It isn't a very neutral term for simply working to get a lottery pick.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 02:00 PM
I undestand your point here, the issue is that if this team gets lucky enough to make it to the playoffs and knowing how JOB is been coaching for the last two years, he would put "the best team that gives him a chance to win" meaning that we are going to see more Watson(gone), Head(gone), Danny(future), Troy(not part of the future),Foster(not part of the future) and he is going to sit the rookies and the second year players because they don't have the experience necessary to play in the playoffs limitating their minutes.

Like I said before, if we want any hope of making it to the playoffs, at least Roy is going to have to be an integral part of that. I think without solid play from him and possibly AJ Price we won't get anywhere. I say AJ because of the Ford situation, and I really don't think they want to pass up on AJ for Travis.

You also will want to play Watson. Just because he is a veteran doesn't mean he doesn't deserve PT, let alone to start right now. But if we go to the playoffs with Roy and if Brandon pans out to have some solid games, that really helps us over the offseason and going into training camp next year with momentum.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 02:00 PM
Young players are impressionable. You don't want them going into their first couple of years thinking that the NBA is all about losing. They need structure and discipline.

Yes, but that's really overrated for four-year players with a history of deep NCAA runs. Do you think that Rush & Tyler, in particular, have ever experienced losing like this? They can't be "happy" or thinking "this is normal". They're already winners, and that is a trait that is usually developed before any of these guys turn pro.

Now you can't build a contending NBA team 100% of out role players from NCAA champions. But surrounding the "star" (whoever that is) with winners seems like a strategy that will pay off. If we can just get Bird to committ 100% to building around the guys he's drafted instead of fiddling around with vets that have been cast-off a few too many times.

Really, do you think 0 playoff games Murphy or 0 playoff games Dunleavy is teaching any of "the NBA is about winning" to these younger guys? Next thing you know, you'll have Mr. "I played in one NCAA tournament game, ever" announcing the Final Four. Oh wait, he already is.

BillS
01-15-2010, 02:01 PM
I undestand your point here, the issue is that if this team gets lucky enough to make it to the playoffs and knowing how JOB is been coaching for the last two years, he would put "the best team that gives him a chance to win" meaning that we are going to see more Watson(gone), Head(gone), Danny(future), Troy(not part of the future),Foster(not part of the future) and he is going to sit the rookies and the second year players because they don't have the experience necessary to play in the playoffs limitating their minutes.

Not sure I agree. To get experience in the playoffs doesn't mean you have to START in the playoffs, and even with your list I can see a reason to keep Watson around as a veteran off the bench, as well as Foster for a few years as a defensive specialist if he doesn't go somewhere else due to trade value.

The biggest thing players need to experience in the playoffs before really having a chance to win is the sheer intensity of the atmosphere and how long it lasts. As Duke said, the NCAA tournament comes close, but that's at most 6 games - a single round in the NBA can go more than that. Just to be on a team that is in it will get you an idea of what to prepare for.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 02:04 PM
The biggest thing players need to experience in the playoffs before really having a chance to win is the sheer intensity of the atmosphere and how long it lasts. As Duke said, the NCAA tournament comes close, but that's at most 6 games - a single round in the NBA can go more than that. Just to be on a team that is in it will get you an idea of what to prepare for.

What? That you can lose three games and still advance?

The NBA playoffs are different in that they are a marathon. But these guys that Bird has been drafting have come from high pressure situations and succeeded.

I wouldn't be saying this if Bird were drafting 19 year-olds that played in one or two conference tournament games and then one or two NCAA tournament games.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 02:05 PM
Yes, but that's really overrated for four-year players with a history of deep NCAA runs. Do you think that Rush & Tyler, in particular, have ever experienced losing like this? They can't be "happy" or thinking "this is normal". They're already winners, and that is a trait that is usually developed before any of these guys turn pro.

Now you can't build a contending NBA team 100% of out role players from NCAA champions. But surrounding the "star" (whoever that is) with winners seems like a strategy that will pay off. If we can just get Bird to committ 100% to building around the guys he's drafted instead of fiddling around with vets that have been cast-off a few too many times.

Really, do you think 0 playoff games Murphy or 0 playoff games Dunleavy is teaching any of "the NBA is about winning" to these younger guys? Next thing you know, you'll have Mr. "I played in one NCAA tournament game, ever" announcing the Final Four. Oh wait, he already is.
Isn't that what 2011 is for? Because if this isn't going to be your team in a few years, why worry about who they're playing with now?

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 02:06 PM
Yes, but that's really overrated for four-year players with a history of deep NCAA runs. Do you think that Rush & Tyler, in particular, have ever experienced losing like this? They can't be "happy" or thinking "this is normal". They're already winners, and that is a trait that is usually developed before any of these guys turn pro.

Now you can't build a contending NBA team 100% of out role players from NCAA champions. But surrounding the "star" (whoever that is) with winners seems like a strategy that will pay off. If we can just get Bird to committ 100% to building around the guys he's drafted instead of fiddling around with vets that have been cast-off a few too many times.

Really, do you think 0 playoff games Murphy or 0 playoff games Dunleavy is teaching any of "the NBA is about winning" to these younger guys? Next thing you know, you'll have Mr. "I played in one NCAA tournament game, ever" announcing the Final Four. Oh wait, he already is.

good point.

And f they make it to the playoffs this young players are going to learn how to get kill by 20 or more points per game, having opposing players celebrating in their faces during the whole game, I don't think that that is going to create a winning culture either.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 02:09 PM
good point.

And f they make it to the playoffs this young players are going to learn how to get kill by 20 or more points per game, having opposing players celebrating in their faces during the whole game, I don't think that that is going to create a winning culture either.
They may get killed by 20 or more points, but something like this teaches them how to lose while trying.

Contrary to popular belief, they are not being fed to hungry dogs like scraps of meat. That's what you are doing if you are just throwing the guys out there just to "develop".

I have a firm conviction that if we were to make the playoffs I'm sure we wouldn't be getting blown out every night or swept. If we made it that means we got our act together and were consistently good. Because that is what it is going to take to dig us out of this hole.

ChicagoJ
01-15-2010, 02:16 PM
Isn't that what 2011 is for? Because if this isn't going to be your team in a few years, why worry about who they're playing with now?

Because they'll magically turn into a playoff team overnight when the next season starts?

I doubt it.

It takes work and preparation to get there. You see, my criticism of Bird is a bit different than the others. Over the past 18 months, I've figured out that he actually does have a vision. Problem is, that vision isn't really singular yet. He'd like to develop a contending team in 2011-2012 AND he'd like to have a playoff team with different (veteran) players right now. But you probably can't have it both ways. Pick one - commit yourself to a Ford-Dunleavy-Granger-Murphy-Foster lineup that might peak at 41 wins if they are lucky (that haven't gotten close to that yet) or commit yourself to a TBD-Rush-Granger-Tyler-Hibbert plus a few more TBDs that could be really good in 2012. Or maybe not but along the way you'll figure out if you need to make tweaks.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 02:18 PM
Because they'll magically turn into a playoff team overnight when the next season starts?

I doubt it.

I didn't imply that magic is real. I was just trying to understand your comments.

Tom White
01-15-2010, 02:26 PM
Im not just talking about the 1st or 2nd pick Im talking about a pick below 10th and I disagree that San Antonio did not tank, everybody knows they did.

So, they told David Robinson that he should pretend to be injured, and miss most of the season, and The Admiral agreed to do just that?

Good Grief, Get Serious!

OrganizedConfusion
01-15-2010, 02:46 PM
So you win the lottery, draft a GOOD player, and you still don't win a title. Meanwhile a couple of other teams make smart trades and touch up with FA work, don't tank to accomplish this, and they win titles - see LA and Detroit.

I really don't understand why a title is the only acceptable benchmark for whether or not drafting lottery picks is a decent strategy for success. The odds of winning a championship are almost completely stacked against the average NBA franchise.

There was an article about this a while back, I can't find it but it basically stated that a title is not the peak for the overwhelming majority of teams in the league. That's just the reality from the business standpoint of the NBA, when it comes down to cap space, keeping players together etc.

So what if the Blazers haven't won a championship. I don't think anybody is laughing at the Blazers for steadily improving each year on a 27 win season in 04-05 to a a 54 win season and playoff appearance last year simply because they failed to win a championship.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 02:49 PM
So what if the Blazers haven't won a championship. I don't think anybody is laughing at the Blazers for steadily improving each year on a 27 win season in 04-05 to a a 54 win season and playoff appearance last year simply because they failed to win a championship.
The Blazers have had an awful lot of mid-second round draft picks, too.

BillS
01-15-2010, 03:55 PM
I really don't understand why a title is the only acceptable benchmark for whether or not drafting lottery picks is a decent strategy for success. The odds of winning a championship are almost completely stacked against the average NBA franchise.

There was an article about this a while back, I can't find it but it basically stated that a title is not the peak for the overwhelming majority of teams in the league. That's just the reality from the business standpoint of the NBA, when it comes down to cap space, keeping players together etc.

So what if the Blazers haven't won a championship. I don't think anybody is laughing at the Blazers for steadily improving each year on a 27 win season in 04-05 to a a 54 win season and playoff appearance last year simply because they failed to win a championship.

Heh. You clearly weren't around in the days where the ECF and the Finals simply weren't good enough and were a clear indication that the team management stunk and needed to be replaced because they wouldn't take the risk to get over the top.

90'sNBARocked
01-15-2010, 04:34 PM
So, they told David Robinson that he should pretend to be injured, and miss most of the season, and The Admiral agreed to do just that?

Good Grief, Get Serious!

Tank might be too strong a word, but I do believe Robinson could have returned much earlier that year, so I think that is where the "perception of tanking" came about