Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

What exactly is tanking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: What exactly is tanking?

    Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
    The concept of tanking doesn't make sense at any point across any organization, at any level. There's absolutely no incentive for anyone involved. A GM, a coach, a player who purposely partakes in "tanking" strategies, not only are not going to be around for the rebuild... but they've just killed their reputation across the league, likely forcing themselves to accept a lower position within the league, or might even be *out* of the league --- either way, a huge pay cut. What non-idiot is going to willingly sign up for that? The only person/group left that "tanking" could benefit is the owner(s). But... there's a massive, inherent risk involved even doing that for *them*. First, you suffer almost immediate revenue loss from sheer poor product and sales. Second, you do all that to land some high draft picks --- which is a crap-shoot at best. Chicago didn't tank, and they landed Derrick Rose. Portland has a terrible season, drafts the savior, and Greg Oden proceeds to carry out a terrible career. What you're left with is about a 20-30% chance of rolling out a profiting product within the next few years, and a guarantee that you're going to roll out a poor product in the meanwhile, which will *likely* result in bad profits almost immediately and likely for awhile until it all comes together.

    The Colts are the perfect example. Why on earth would that entire organization tank, including Irsay? If they did indeed tank --- everyone single one of those guys involved are gone. Most of them demoted, taking lesser pay. Polian --- TV analyst. Caldwell, coordinator (and got lucky that Detroit is a bunch of morons). Coaches, gone. Players, signed way lower contracts elsewhere or are out of the league. About the only way you sell that to an entire organization is if you offer some incentive/agreement under the table to those involved for willingly tanking *their careers*, not that season. And you'd have to be an idiot or simply without options to accept such a deal. What if you do all that, and Luck tanks? Now you just gave up cash-cow Peyton, and you're set back probably a decade with a fraction of your usual profits over that span.

    That is a massive risk. Even Peyton for 2-3 more years would result in way higher profits than tanking and failing for a decade. It just doesn't make sense.

    Can you imagine that conversation?

    Irsay: "Bill, we're gonna lose on purpose for the rest of this year, clean house, draft a new savior, start a new era of Colts football."
    Polian: "Okay, what's in it for me, besides a wrecked career?"
    Irsay: "Nothing."
    Polian: "Sounds good, let's do it. I'll go tell all the coaches and players; I'm sure they'll all be happy to hear their careers are likely going to nose-dive. Shall we do update meetings every morning?"
    In the case of the Colts, you only had to have one person on board with tanking. All Irsay had to do was say, you have to play Painter over the clearly superior Orlovsky or he is fired. It amazes me that Painter is still in the league.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What exactly is tanking?

      But again, my point was --- Irsay was undertaking a massive risk making that directive.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What exactly is tanking?

        This thread comes up every year? "Define Tanking" "What teams are tanking?" "Why do teams tank?" "Is tanking a problem?"
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What exactly is tanking?

          Well, it's basically when the general manager gets inside of a Sherman and then lines the team up. The Vet's are too slow to get out of the way so they are toast, the young talented guys with long-term contracts also get splattered by the tracks because they are too busy getting followers on twitter and the fans get shot with the rounds. That just leave's the low paid d leaguers to eat up the tracks and Tank one for the team.

          Oh and the coach, he just shovels up the crap left over and tries to push the tank out of the way, but it's just too damn heavy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What exactly is tanking?

            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
            The concept of tanking doesn't make sense at any point across any organization, at any level. There's absolutely no incentive for anyone involved. A GM, a coach, a player who purposely partakes in "tanking" strategies, not only are not going to be around for the rebuild... but they've just killed their reputation across the league, likely forcing themselves to accept a lower position within the league, or might even be *out* of the league --- either way, a huge pay cut. What non-idiot is going to willingly sign up for that? The only person/group left that "tanking" could benefit is the owner(s). But... there's a massive, inherent risk involved even doing that for *them*. First, you suffer almost immediate revenue loss from sheer poor product and sales. Second, you do all that to land some high draft picks --- which is a crap-shoot at best. Chicago didn't tank, and they landed Derrick Rose. Portland has a terrible season, drafts the savior, and Greg Oden proceeds to carry out a terrible career. What you're left with is about a 20-30% chance of rolling out a profiting product within the next few years, and a guarantee that you're going to roll out a poor product in the meanwhile, which will *likely* result in bad profits almost immediately and likely for awhile until it all comes together.

            The Colts are the perfect example. Why on earth would that entire organization tank, including Irsay? If they did indeed tank --- everyone single one of those guys involved are gone. Most of them demoted, taking lesser pay. Polian --- TV analyst. Caldwell, coordinator (and got lucky that Detroit is a bunch of morons). Coaches, gone. Players, signed way lower contracts elsewhere or are out of the league. About the only way you sell that to an entire organization is if you offer some incentive/agreement under the table to those involved for willingly tanking *their careers*, not that season. And you'd have to be an idiot or simply without options to accept such a deal. What if you do all that, and Luck tanks? Now you just gave up cash-cow Peyton, and you're set back probably a decade with a fraction of your usual profits over that span.

            That is a massive risk. Even Peyton for 2-3 more years would result in way higher profits than tanking and failing for a decade. It just doesn't make sense.

            Can you imagine that conversation?

            Irsay: "Bill, we're gonna lose on purpose for the rest of this year, clean house, draft a new savior, start a new era of Colts football."
            Polian: "Okay, what's in it for me, besides a wrecked career?"
            Irsay: "Nothing."
            Polian: "Sounds good, let's do it. I'll go tell all the coaches and players; I'm sure they'll all be happy to hear their careers are likely going to nose-dive. Shall we do update meetings every morning?"
            You can't compare football to basketball as it pertains to tanking and the draft. You suit up 52 players every game in the NFL vs. 12 in the NBA, and you have 22 starters vs. 5. Clearly snagging a franchise player in the draft has much more impact in the NBA, even when you factor in the "skill" positions being disproportionately more valuable to an NFL team.

            And there is PLENTY of upside for a GM of a mediocre team to tank. If you are a 40-42 win team, you will most likely stay a 40-42 win team if you draft in the late teens every year and don't have a big market to l ure free agents. Being a perennial fringe playoff team that receives a beating from the 1 seed or barely misses the playoffs is a sure-fire way for a GM to get fired in the NBA. Those sort of teams don't excite a fan base, don't drive jersey sales, don't produce massive revenue, and also don't compete for titles, which is the only other reason the owner has the team.

            By tanking, the GM gets to say "nothing I could do, I inherited this mess, but give me 3-5 years, and I'll turn it around." That in itself buys you as much time as you would get if you try to win now with the fringe playoff team. The difference is that if you try to win now, you're very unlikely to get a difference maker in the draft or in free agency to buy you more time. But if you are picking in the top 5 for 3 straight years, there's a decent chance you are going to draft an All-Star, and as long as those young guys are developing, the fans and owner will stay off your back, and you can potentially get 10+ years. Danny Ainge has made rebuilding to save his job into an art form.

            Just because it doesn't work due to incompetence doesn't mean it isn't a viable strategy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What exactly is tanking?

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              You can't compare football to basketball as it pertains to tanking and the draft. You suit up 52 players every game in the NFL vs. 12 in the NBA, and you have 22 starters vs. 5. Clearly snagging a franchise player in the draft has much more impact in the NBA, even when you factor in the "skill" positions being disproportionately more valuable to an NFL team.

              And there is PLENTY of upside for a GM of a mediocre team to tank. If you are a 40-42 win team, you will most likely stay a 40-42 win team if you draft in the late teens every year and don't have a big market to l ure free agents. Being a perennial fringe playoff team that receives a beating from the 1 seed or barely misses the playoffs is a sure-fire way for a GM to get fired in the NBA. Those sort of teams don't excite a fan base, don't drive jersey sales, don't produce massive revenue, and also don't compete for titles, which is the only other reason the owner has the team.

              By tanking, the GM gets to say "nothing I could do, I inherited this mess, but give me 3-5 years, and I'll turn it around." That in itself buys you as much time as you would get if you try to win now with the fringe playoff team. The difference is that if you try to win now, you're very unlikely to get a difference maker in the draft or in free agency to buy you more time. But if you are picking in the top 5 for 3 straight years, there's a decent chance you are going to draft an All-Star, and as long as those young guys are developing, the fans and owner will stay off your back, and you can potentially get 10+ years. Danny Ainge has made rebuilding to save his job into an art form.

              Just because it doesn't work due to incompetence doesn't mean it isn't a viable strategy.
              Huh uh, ain't buyin' it. You're right, you can't compare the two, not because of just sheer pool size --- but because of the one fact that throws your theory into chaos --- the lottery. The NFL doesn't have a lottery. Tanking in the NFL guarantees you will have a very high draft pick, even a #1. In the NFL, you can draft a franchise player easily in the top 5 due to the size of the talent pool. In the NBA, you can lose more games than anyone, put a terrible product on the floor, and get rewarded with the 4th pick. The team with the worst record rarely wins the #1 pick, and there is typically 1 franchise player in every draft, if you're lucky, so the gulf between a #1 and a #2 is humongous. Look at NO --- they stole the #1 from Charlotte, nabbed Anthony Davis, who in my opinion is a bonafide franchise player, and Charlotte who won a total of 7 games got themselves a large heaping helping of Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. If there was a tank job employed there, it failed miserably, in terms of tanking just to land a franchise player. And this is all assuming the lottery is conducted honorably... a lottery in all practicality introduces a mechanism for corruption in which picks are manipulated, which introduces a whole other layer you have to get through as a franchise to actually secure a pick. Not that I personally believe this, but it also wouldn't surprise me... that's a whole other argument.

              I'm just curious, how would a GM sell that concept to his owner? "So, here's my plan. We're gonna clean house, lose on purpose this year for a 25% chance to land the #1 pick, assuming we lose more games than anyone else in the league. Then, we'll suck for 2-3 years as we grow and rebuild, but in year 4-5 we should be a playoff contender. Just stick with me here." Conversely, why would any owner worth his salt push such a plan on his organization, an organization designed to make him money? Where is the financial incentive to build-in financial loss into your business plan via 2-3 losing seasons for the chance (and not a good one) of reaping rewards 4-5-6 years down the road? Talk about throwing a hail mary. You sometimes take a financial loss initially when the prospects of a much larger return are high in the foreseeable future... but it needs to be with high confidence. Tanking with the hopes of hitting the lottery and drafting a franchise player who will still need 3-4 seasons to realize his full potential while you put a team round him is a pretty low confidence business strategy. You might hit a grand slam, but you're probably gonna go down swinging. You also are likely going to lose said franchise player before you can reap the BIG rewards. Miami is reaping from Cleveland's draft pick. LA reaped from Orlando's draft pick (so did Miami). If you want to make the BIG money in this league, you have to acquire talent, you have to orchestrate smart contracts, and you have to have coaching --- not tanking. Period. Not tanking. Miami and Indiana are the two east powers right now, they didn't tank. They did exactly what I said a team has to do. LA and Miami won rings doing exactly what I said.

              And finally... Your theory builds in all kinds of contingency's for the GM, and the GM isn't the one paying the bills. The owner doesn't give a **** about the GM's designs for personal "outs" and stall tactics and alibis to preserve his name and make a lot of money for as long as possible. You don't pay a guy 7 digits to do that, lol....
              Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-25-2014, 02:24 PM.
              There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What exactly is tanking?

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Huh uh, ain't buyin' it. You're right, you can't compare the two, not because of just sheer pool size --- but because of the one fact that throws your theory into chaos --- the lottery. The NFL doesn't have a lottery. Tanking in the NFL guarantees you will have a very high draft pick, even a #1. In the NFL, you can draft a franchise player easily in the top 5 due to the size of the talent pool. In the NBA, you can lose more games than anyone, put a terrible product on the floor, and get rewarded with the 4th pick. The team with the worst record rarely wins the #1 pick, and there is typically 1 franchise player in every draft, if you're lucky, so the gulf between a #1 and a #2 is humongous. Look at NO --- they stole the #1 from Charlotte, nabbed Anthony Davis, who in my opinion is a bonafide franchise player, and Charlotte who won a total of 7 games got themselves a large heaping helping of Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. If there was a tank job employed there, it failed miserably, in terms of tanking just to land a franchise player. And this is all assuming the lottery is conducted honorably... a lottery in all practicality introduces a mechanism for corruption in which picks are manipulated, which introduces a whole other layer you have to get through as a franchise to actually secure a pick. Not that I personally believe this, but it also wouldn't surprise me... that's a whole other argument.

                I'm just curious, how would a GM sell that concept to his owner? "So, here's my plan. We're gonna clean house, lose on purpose this year for a 25% chance to land the #1 pick, assuming we lose more games than anyone else in the league. Then, we'll suck for 2-3 years as we grow and rebuild, but in year 4-5 we should be a playoff contender. Just stick with me here." Conversely, why would any owner worth his salt push such a plan on his organization, an organization designed to make him money? Where is the financial incentive to build-in financial loss into your business plan via 2-3 losing seasons for the chance (and not a good one) of reaping rewards 4-5-6 years down the road? Talk about throwing a hail mary. You sometimes take a financial loss initially when the prospects of a much larger return are high in the foreseeable future... but it needs to be with high confidence. Tanking with the hopes of hitting the lottery and drafting a franchise player who will still need 3-4 seasons to realize his full potential while you put a team round him is a pretty low confidence business strategy. You might hit a grand slam, but you're probably gonna go down swinging. You also are likely going to lose said franchise player before you can reap the BIG rewards. Miami is reaping from Cleveland's draft pick. LA reaped from Orlando's draft pick (so did Miami). If you want to make the BIG money in this league, you have to acquire talent, you have to orchestrate smart contracts, and you have to have coaching --- not tanking. Period. Not tanking. Miami and Indiana are the two east powers right now, they didn't tank. They did exactly what I said a team has to do. LA and Miami won rings doing exactly what I said.

                And finally... Your theory builds in all kinds of contingency's for the GM, and the GM isn't the one paying the bills. The owner doesn't give a **** about the GM's designs for personal "outs" and stall tactics and alibis to preserve his name and make a lot of money for as long as possible. You don't pay a guy 7 digits to do that, lol....
                Are we arguing about whether tanking exists or whether it is effective? Tanking does exist, it does happen, and it can work. Is it the safest way to build a contender? No, but it is one way. You can say that teams are "smart" about drafting and making moves, but there's nothing "smart" about what Miami did. Three top-20 players decided they wanted to play together, and of their three teams, Miami was more appealing than Cleveland or Toronto. Was that smart, or was that drafting Dwanye Wade and being located by South Beach?

                As for LA, they made a great draft day trade for Kobe Bryant. The rest of it has been the allure of playing and living in LA combined with playing with guys that the Lakers can acquire. Shaq didn't go to LA because it was a better run franchise than Orlando. He went there because he didn't like Penny Hardaway, the Lakers had Kobe Bryant to help him, and it made it easier to pursue his rap/movie career. Likewise, Shaq didn't leave LA because Miami was shrewd, he left because he didn't want to play with Kobe, without Phil, and thus, the trade.

                Indiana is a different case. Indiana and San Antonio are the best argument for not tanking. But San Antonio accidentally tanked to get Tim Duncan, and got lucky with some of those picks. Not even San Antonio expected Tony Parker to have the kind of career he has had. Likewise, when Roy Hibbert was drafted, I'm pretty sure that the Pacers did envision Roy changing the entire offensive flow of teams because of verticality. Likely they were expecting a solid, backup big man. Likewise, Paul George and Lance Stephenson were swing for the fences moves. They could have easily ended up being a rotational wing and out of the league, respectively. You can call that skill to judge character and work ethic, building the right culture, but it's also largely luck.

                As for the NFL, it has built-in tanking, as long as you aren't gaming the system or have a franchise, HOF player. Manning or Brady will keep you at 10+ wins for most of their career, but most teams have a cycle of being good, then being bad. It's called Parity. Salary caps and variable strength of schedule are designed to make sure you aren't too good for too long. Some franchises buck that system by having a once in a generation player and/or coach, but for most teams, it's a cycle. So there's really no need to tank, an adjusted schedule combined with some free agents walking for more money to a bad team will make sure you aren't as good this year as last year. See: KC Chiefs, Baltimore Ravens, Atlanta Falcons.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What exactly is tanking?

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  I think tanking is coaches coaching to lose and players playing to lose.

                  And therefore I think tanking is a total misnomer
                  Then you're attributing the "tanking" to particular individuals or roles within a team.

                  So you'd agree that what the 76ers have done can be considered "tanking" by those in charge of player personnel (probably a mix of Sam Hinkie and the owners of the team)? Because I don't think you can argue that they put the best players on the floor that they could've.

                  In that sense "tanking" is not a misnomer. I don't think anyone says tanking thinking that it means that Michael Carter Williams, Thad Young and the rest of them are actively trying to lose games. But if you consider the owners, team president, GM, etc as representative of the team, then "tanking" seems to fit better.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X