Tanking for picks??? (Sports)

[Renegade7]

@Momma There Goes That ManThis deserves its own overdue thread, so I'm moving our discussion to here instead of taking over the NBA thread (where I believe this is more of a threat to the integrity of sports in general).  

 

Ya'll can go into the NBA thread to see how we got to this point, but I stand by "no" vote and have no problem defending it.  

 

 

This is another one of those "wanting what's best for the team but disagreeing on what the best thing is" discussion, but this one is on a different level then other discussions because it affects the very core of Professional Sports and I believe we're playing with fire here if this ever becomes "normal".  I'm going to try my best to stay respectful even if I vehemently disagree with some of you, and ask ya'll do the same.  This could get ugly fast with people pulling fan cards, lets try to avoid that if we can.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I only used the Wizards to show that their best players were top draft picks. And they have a good team now because of it. Now that they have their stars they can add pieces here and there to try to get over the hump. Much better than forever being in purgatory not good enough to seriously compete and not bad enough to have the chance at a great player in the draft. Redskins should have tanked in 11 when it was clear they were terrible. Could have had Luck and kept our other picks. I wouldn’t care if they went the way of the Browns the last 3 years either if their plan was to seriously stockpile high draft picks and rebuild the team either

 

Nba wise- I actually don’t have a team. I just love basketball. I was always a Kobe guy tho rooted for him hard from rookie to retirement. He helped peak my interest in the league coming in right around Jordan’s return. But I don’t really care about the Lakers once he left. Probably because nobody else in my family likes the nba and my dad didn’t either. He liked Larry Bird of course but otherwise just a bunch of thugs. (Eyeroll) 

 

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

So the plan was to tank for those players all along, is that what you are insinuating?  They made the decision to do this while those guys were in high school

 

No the plan was to be bad for increased chances ar higher draft picks because usually there are good to great players at the top of the draft and occasionally their are transcendent talents there. Sure it worked out for them. Sometimes you get Simmons, Anthony Davis or Embiid, sometimes you get Anthony Bennett

 

 

You keep bringing up the fact that we got our core players via high draft picks, but ignore the fact I told you we didn't tank to get them, it wasn't necessary, we already sucked our plan was nothing like the Process the Sixers went through, not even close.  We already have 3 max players, I don't know if we could get a a 4th even if we wanted to, so getting another top 5 pick is irrelevant, we'd lose one of the four eventually anyway not being able to keep it together.  Again, I don't think we need an all-pro center (it would be nice) but we absolutely need a more competent one (which we don't have right now), a PF to replace Jason Smith and push Morris for minutes, and better coaching in late game situations.  We don't need to tank to do that.

 

And I'm glad you brought up the Redskins because what happened with Griffin is what solidified my decision on "no" even though at the time I didn't want to tank to get him or Luck either.  Regardless of if we had the #2 pick without trading picks to get there, Griffin was the wrong one anyway.  And you know what, given we still don't know when Luck is playing again, or the future of his shoulder, I'll say it, he would've been the wrong pick, too.  The draft is an absolute crapshot, stuff that'd you'd think makes sense doesn't end up making sense at all everyday in every draft and has been that way since the beginning.  Great teams typically don't tank to get players, they accumulate talent anyway they can, do their homework and hit more then they miss.  

 

Like I said, its a cop out by an incompetent franchise to just lose as much as they can to try to get the best prospects, regardless of who they are or how they fit your system.  Didn't Philly have a glutton of big men they didn't know what to do with and that's big reason they traded Noel?  They don't know what they're doing, can we please stop pretending like they do?  They pushed the guy out who's idea this "Process" was to begin with.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Yes, if it’s in the best long term interest of the team.

[Kosher Ham]

Seems like Sacks ended the thread. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well until sports figures it out, there's no real better way to do it.  The worst teams get the highest picks because that's what's deemed as fair since they need the talent the most.  The Eagles and Patriots can't go 1 and 2 in the draft this year with the Browns picking last.  

 

I think the NBA, oddly enough, has it closest to where it should be...if you don't make the playoffs, you're part of a lottery.  You might get the first pick, you might get the fifth pick.  You could get the 10th pick.  We'll see.

 

But in the NBA, you really need one, maybe two players to turn your franchise around.  76ers didn't look like they knew what they were doing for years, turns out it worked out well for them.  They got Simmons who is an all world talent and if Embiid can stay healthy, that's quite a duo.  Noel didn't pan out, not all lottery picks do.

 

MLB, NFL, it's more clear cut.  The more you lose, the higher draft pick you get.  I can't really argue with a team that has two wins headed into week 17 and doesn't want to win if that means they get the #1 overall pick.  There's no benefit to having that team win three games.  There's no benefit to your baseball team winning 73 games if 68 will get you the first overall pick.  I remember one year the Orioles were vying for the worst record in the majors and then swept the Yankees in the last weekend to NOT get the first overall pick.  Who was the #1 overall pick in baseball next year?  It was Strasburg or Harper, I can't remember.  Those guys were picked in back to back years and the hype was unbelievable.  My favorite team had a shot at one of them.  I was LIVID.  A sweep of the Yankees in the final weekend is something no one gives a **** about years later, except only when to mention it in a situation like this.  

 

Overall, @Renegade7you're right, any draft is a crap shoot.  But if you hit and hit big, it could turn your franchise around.  Like I said, there's no benefit for your franchise to win that last meaningless game.  There is a benefit to have that #1 overall pick.  

[Renegade7]

7 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yes, if it’s in the best long term interest of the team.

Isn't it typically always in the best long term interest of the team?  That's not my point, can you at least try to touch any of what I brought up?  What if it doesn't work?  What if multiple teams start doing that?

[Kilmer17]

The only thing I have to root for as sports fan is a draft pick.  So yeah.  Tank on purpose.  My teams are never ever going to win a title.  And if you aren’t going to win it all.  At least make the draft intriguing 

[PeterMP]

I'm going to move this here:

 

The fundamental thing that Hienke and the Sixers understood is that you are going to have bad picks.  It is unavoidable.  That's why you have to accumulate assets.  It isn't enough to simply take the assets that you are given from being bad, you have acquire other ones so that you have lots of chances to get it right.

 

It isn't like they took Okafor well before or after his expected draft position.  It just turned out that he either has no clue how to, no interest in doing it, or has health problems that prevent him from playing anything other than awful defense at an NBA level (it isn't clear to me, if he's just really bad at defense, just doesn't care, or his knees really are that bad that they've wrecked his ability to move and jump).  That's a function of drafting 19-20 year olds.

 

The difference between the Wizards and the Sixers is that missing on one pick (Jan Vesely) essentially ruined their chances of ever contending for a title unless they get extremely lucky elsewhere in acquiring a player (e.g. they get a guy in the late 1st round or 2nd round that turns into an all star caliber player) where they don't have many picks to even get lucky with that sort of thing.   What Hinkie did was help ensure that wasn't going to happen to the Sixers because they have enough picks that they can get unlucky and miss with picks, and still have more picks in the pipeline to recover.

 

I will also say the NFL is different because one single player is less important, the risk of significant career altering injury is so much more, and that there isn't a good way to shield young players from those risk.  The Sixers were also aided by the NBA's salary rules and the benefit of taking bad contracts that doesn't at least happen as much in the NFL.  The NFL is also different in terms of just being luck and getting hot and healthy the right time of year can result in a championship.  That happens less in other sports with 7 game playoff series.

 

I think you look at what the Astros did in baseball, and you see the same concepts can certainly work in MLB as in the NBA.

 

**EDIT**

 

Hienke acquired picks and players through out the NBA draft.  Robert Covington is a starter because they tanked.  They have Dario Saric from tanking, and they've got more picks coming.

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Seems like Sacks ended the thread. 

Not when this affects the four major sports in different ways, all of which can backfire horribly.  I'm empathetic to a micro view of this as a fan of an individual team.  This is very much in danger of becoming a macro problem.

 

Tanking is the polar opposite of what a multi-million (sometimes multi-billion) dollar franchise is supposed to be doing.  For every way that can be brought up how this would be worth it, a counter arguement can be made for how it will backfire.

 

Case and point:  A lot of my fellow Wizards fans wanted us to loss just enough to not get the 6th seed and avoid LeBron and win just enough to get the 7th and play the celtics.  What does that even mean?  What if multiple teams actually try to do that?  We ended up with the 8th seed, which is worse then what fans wanted (now we have to deal with the #1 seed and play LeBron in the second round).  I kept saying we had to eventually play LeBron anyway, there's no point of running, lets focus on doing what we can to get as ready as we can.  Intentionally losing isn't going to help that.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Not when this affects the four major sports in different ways, all of which can backfire horribly.  I'm empathetic to a micro view of this as a fan of an individual team.  This is very much in danger of becoming a macro problem.

 

Tanking is the polar opposite of what a multi-million (sometimes multi-billion) dollar franchise is supposed to be doing.  For every way that can be brought up how this would be worth it, a counter arguement can be made for how it will backfire.

 

Case and point:  A lot of my fellow Wizards fans wanted us to loss just enough to not get the 6th seed and avoid LeBron and win just enough to get the 7th and play the celtics.  What does that even mean?  What if multiple teams actually try to do that?  We ended up with the 8th seed, which is worse then what fans wanted (now we have to deal with the #1 seed and play LeBron in the second round).  I kept saying we had to eventually play LeBron anyway, there's no point of running, lets focus on doing what we can to get as ready as we can.  Intentionally losing isn't going to help that.

 

The Sixers tank wasn't just about losing badly.  It was about turning players and cap space into future picks.  Anybody can just lose badly.  If that's all you think the Sixers did, you don't understand what they did.

 

Look at the Nik Stauskas trade.  That trade isn't really about losing at all, but it is part of the Sixers tank.

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Well until sports figures it out, there's no real better way to do it.  The worst teams get the highest picks because that's what's deemed as fair since they need the talent the most.  The Eagles and Patriots can't go 1 and 2 in the draft this year with the Browns picking last.  

 

 

Overall, @Renegade7you're right, any draft is a crap shoot.  But if you hit and hit big, it could turn your franchise around.  Like I said, there's no benefit for your franchise to win that last meaningless game.  There is a benefit to have that #1 overall pick.  

 

Ya'll keep looking at this from the standpoint of just your team doing it.  I don't agree that there's no better way to build a championship team, guess what, its hard, and these people are getting paid millions of dollars to figure that out.  It was brought up in the NBA thread that the #1 overall pick could get you LeBron or Kwame Brown.  That's the risk your taking by intentionally losing without a clear plan of what you're losing for.  The Luck/Griffin thing is an example of having a plan of what to intentionally lose for and it backfiring anyway.

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The Sixers tank wasn't just about losing badly.  It was about turning players and cap space into future picks.  Anybody can just lose badly.  If that's all you think the Sixers did, you don't understand what they did.

 

Look at the Nik Stauskas trade.  That trade isn't really about losing at all, but it is part of the Sixers tank.

I don't think that's all the sixers did, I disagree with intentionally trying to be noncompetitive for several seasons in a row.  The lottery was put in place to help stop this, now teams are doing it anyway.  Now what?

[zoony]

I am all for it, 10000 percent.

 

I follow sports to see competition, and hopefully see my team outsmart and out manuever other teams.  Thats what tanking is.  I envy the browns right now

[AsburySkinsFan]

This discussion ONLY happens in America because our pro-sports teams are secured spots in the highest professional levels. The Cleveland Browns, Lions, Rams etc are perfect examples of teams that would have been relegated out of the top levels of competition. We absolutely coddle these teams and players so there is ZERO sense of urgency to play to at least avoid relegation. 

At 0-16 can ANYONE tell me that the Browns deserve a spot in the NFL?

This idea the teams should tank their seasons in order to secure mystery picks is utterly horrible. So now you’ve gone 0-16 and secured 1st pick and get Andrew Luck, RGIII, or whatever QB the Browns will recycle out in five years. This idea is a cancer that only exists because we have embraced and reward mediocrity.

 

By a show of hands how many here think that Real Madrid, Barçelona, Bayern Munich, or Chelsea would acheive their success by bottom dwelling? What about Leicester City? Did they win the EPL two years ago by bottom feeding? No, they were a 5000:1 shot at the beginning of the season and won, not because of huge budgets but because they developed and played to win.

 

This conversation is absolute loser talk.

[Renegade7]

20 minutes ago, zoony said:

I am all for it, 10000 percent.

 

I follow sports to see competition, and hopefully see my team outsmart and out manuever other teams.  Thats what tanking is.  I envy the browns right now

Ya, yes, the "I'm only going to win 1 game in two years and now my starting QB is Tyrod Taylor" browns.  What an inspiration.

[Spaceman Spiff]

49 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Ya'll keep looking at this from the standpoint of just your team doing it.  I don't agree that there's no better way to build a championship team, guess what, its hard, and these people are getting paid millions of dollars to figure that out.  It was brought up in the NBA thread that the #1 overall pick could get you LeBron or Kwame Brown.  That's the risk your taking by intentionally losing without a clear plan of what you're losing for.  The Luck/Griffin thing is an example of having a plan of what to intentionally lose for and it backfiring anyway.

I don't think that's all the sixers did, I disagree with intentionally trying to be noncompetitive for several seasons in a row.  The lottery was put in place to help stop this, now teams are doing it anyway.  Now what?

 

Well of course I just look at it from my teams doing it.  I don't give a **** about anyone else's teams

 

No ones saying there isn't any risk.   I think the 76ers guy freely admits it.  But the higher you pick, you can identify the picks that are lesser of a risk or you can trade down and get more picks.  No strategy is perfect, they all have pitfalls.  

 

I will say that I think teams start the season with the best intentions to compete.  But if you're playing out the stretch and clearly not in playoff contention, there's no reason to try to win.  Like I said, there was no good reason for the Orioles to sweep the Yankees on a final weekend and miss out on Harper/Strasburg.  

[Springfield]

I’m for teams dumping all of their good players so that their record suffers and they can get better picks.

 

I’m not for teams that are built well playing intentionally bad so that they can further bolster their team.  That’s stupid.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

That's not my point, can you at least try to touch any of what I brought up?

Ugh... I’m a lazy ass mother****er Renegade.

 

Why can’t you be more like Kosher? Just say that I’m right and close the thread.

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Ugh... I’m a lazy ass mother****er Renegade.

 

Why can’t you be more like Kosher? Just say that I’m right and close the thread.

Where's the fun in that? : )

 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Well of course I just look at it from my teams doing it.  I don't give a **** about anyone else's teams

 

No ones saying there isn't any risk.   I think the 76ers guy freely admits it.  But the higher you pick, you can identify the picks that are lesser of a risk or you can trade down and get more picks.  No strategy is perfect, they all have pitfalls.  

 

I will say that I think teams start the season with the best intentions to compete.  But if you're playing out the stretch and clearly not in playoff contention, there's no reason to try to win.  Like I said, there was no good reason for the Orioles to sweep the Yankees on a final weekend and miss out on Harper/Strasburg.  

 

: ) Here's the thing, I don't blame you for feeling this way, but the threat is you aren't the only one that does and it's in danger of cascading.  Typically teams who have a #1 overall pick don't trade out, so even if it makes sense, that's typically not the plan and that's because if the goal is to get the highest pick no matter what, there really isn't a plan.  Losing those last couple games cost ya'll, no other way around it.  This is a very grey discussion.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I responded "yes" but it really depends on the league/team and the current situation.  The competitive part of me screams "NO", as finishing 1-15 is better than 0-16.  And there are jobs on the line (players, coaches, staffs, etc.).  Now I'm not one to necessarily feel sorry for a millionaire getting cut or traded to another team, but try to keep an open mind on how I would feel in their situations.

 

But for example the Redskins, If they had tanked in 2011 and put themselves in a position to pick #1 or #2, I'd have little issue with it.  I remember telling my wife that I while I want to win games, it wouldn't necessarily hurt my feelings if they lost or even tanked that year.  Now, I wasn't "rooting" for it, but we all knew the better finish would require valuable draft picks to move up to snag Luck or RGIII.  Even if draft picks are hit or miss, it would have been nice to have those two 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014 to get that 50/50 chance to hit or miss.  

 

 

 

 

[No Excuses]

You have to tank in the NBA. 

 

The Wizards are basically NBA purgatory. Good enough to make the playoffs, bad enough to be stuck in perpetual mediocrity. 

 

They absolutely blew the rebuild by trading draft picks for aging veterans and drafting like crap out of the top 3. 

 

The NFL is a bit different I think. You are not as reliant on your draft position to find quality talent. 

[spjunkies]

I'm all for it. I remember hoping we would duck at the end of the season so we could be in position to get Sean Taylor and the same thing for Robert Griffin. 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Where's the fun in that? : )

 

 

 

 

 

: ) Here's the thing, I don't blame you for feeling this way, but the threat is you aren't the only one that does and it's in danger of cascading.  Typically teams who have a #1 overall pick don't trade out, so even if it makes sense, that's typically not the plan and that's because if the goal is to get the highest pick no matter what, there really isn't a plan.  Losing those last couple games cost ya'll, no other way around it.  This is a very grey discussion.

 

It is a grey discussion, for sure.  

 

I still stand by my point of teams playing out the string, though.  There's not much to gain if you're an MLB team if you're trying to win 71 games or 68 games.   I do have an issue if a team is tanking from Game 1 though.  

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I don't think that's all the sixers did, I disagree with intentionally trying to be noncompetitive for several seasons in a row.  The lottery was put in place to help stop this, now teams are doing it anyway.  Now what?

 

The way to solve the problem in any sport is to go after the money of owners of non-competitive teams.  If you don't field a play off team for X years in a row, the money coming to you from the league gets cut, and for leagues that have a salary cap, your cap 2 years down the road gets cut (I'm not going going to cut your cap the year you are trying to be bad, but in the future).

 

Until then from a management/fan stand point, if the objective is to win a championship, it makes the most sense.

[Llevron]

You tell me how teams like the Browns or, unfortunately, the Wizards are supposed to compete otherwise and you will have an argument. But the reality is that the game isn't fair for some squads as it is already. 

 

Who wants to play for the got damn Browns huh? Literally no one. The only thing that is supposed to level the playing field for them is free agency. But if I can go to Dallas and not pay tax AND play in a better market AND live in a more "fun" area as a 25 year old pro football player who is single and has no worries in the world....why THE **** would I choose Cleveland? 

 

Simple answer is I wouldn't and no one else would. That's why they suck. Draft good and you may get a few picks that last long enough to get paid by someone else and leave. That's it. 

 

Its the same with the Wiz. Kevin Durant didn't even talk to us and he grew up here, his moms wanted him to play here, everyone in the DMV wanted him to play here including his childhood friends or whatever emotional connection he has to the place AND our team would have been a consistent contender for the ring ever damn year. AND HE DIDN'T EVEN TALK TO US lol. Past that look at Ariza. Left for the same contract but went to Texas, again cause no tax. 

 

There is nothing some of these teams can do but tank it to make it. 

 

Edit: Oh and we hired Durant's coach. Didnt even get a 'you up?' text. 

[Renegade7]

30 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The way to solve the problem in any sport is to go after the money of owners of non-competitive teams.  If you don't field a play off team for X years in a row, the money coming to you from the league gets cut, and for leagues that have a salary cap, your cap 2 years down the road gets cut (I'm not going going to cut your cap the year you are trying to be bad, but in the future).

 

Until then from a management/fan stand point, if the objective is to win a championship, it makes the most sense.

 

I like the idea of getting serious about punishing teams for either not being competitive or worse not even trying.  I think if you do that though, they need to put a salary cap in baseball, because teams like the A's I'm torn on because they practically started moneyball, but didn't have the resources to keep and retain their players that could've put them over the top (at least that's how I understand it, may be wrong).  In the meantime, I understand why a franchise would feel they have no other choice, but I don't agree with going that route or feeling that way.  It's their job to figure that out, and if this becomes more common for teams to intentionally go this route, we have a much bigger problem on our hands.

[Yohan]

22 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Who wants to play for the got damn Browns huh? Literally no one.

 

This was once said about playing for the Green Bay Packers. Often coaches wouldn't threaten players that they would trade them to Green Bay. Get yourself a gunslinger for a QB, that adds excitement and BOOM, players like Reggie White want to play there.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about losing to get better picks like the Sixers did for what seems to be years, but when I look at the Milwaukee Bucks, who seem to have enough to get to the playoffs, and not much more. The whole premise for building a new Bucks arena was based off of how exciting the team is and will be going forward. The improvement hasn't been there over the past few years, and the Bucks appear to be the perpetual 6, 7, 8 seed in the playoffs. But at least the get to play in a new arena next season.