Tanking for picks??? (Sports)

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, Llevron said:

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. 

 

Ohio has never been Miami in terms of location, but once upon a time the Browns were totally winning championships.  In the not to distant past, Foxboro was a hell hole that no one wanted anything to do with. This also doesn't explain why nobody wants to play for the Knicks or Lakers right now. I can keep going, but I'm going to skip Durant because he was on the fence coming home because of what he knew was going to be waiting for him when he did (and I'm not talking about basketball).  He turned his back on Ernie, not us, and I promise you it traces back to him doing stuff like putting a picture of KD on the jumbotron in a Wizards uniform.  We can get players like Pierce to come here because they take us seriously, but when we act like a second rate franchise, ya, it becomes a deterrent.

[Bang]

I can see why teams might do it, but i could never respect it. 

It's a punk move.

note, i should say that i prefer sports that do not get such a heavy swing from one player.

This is why i don't watch the NBA. Tanking can have an effect there because one superstar can make the difference between title chances and chumpville.

Football, not at all. An NFL team that tanks should have every single member of the FO and coaching staff fired at midfield.

 

~Bang

[Warhead36]

I don't have a problem with it. The worst thing you can be in sports is in that ~.500 purgatory. Either SUCK enough to land some franchise altering talent or go for it all.

[Mr. Sinister]

Sometimes you just can't have it all. You can either choose to acknowledge this, throw away the entitlement, feel better as a result, root for your team, hold them accountable when they aren't performing, and let them know that at the very least, you expect them to give their best effort, from execs to players.

 

If you don't want to do that, then either try to find a team that wins all the time or has a ton of prestige and pop culture appeal and is able to attract free agents and is never quite out of the picture... Or, just accept that you may just have one foot out of the door as a viewer of said sport, and plant the other one as well.

 

Nothing is learned in life by intentionally trying to fail. Failure is supposed to be something that occurs naturally, along the path to success,  and I find it disturbing that this catching on so much across all sports. It sets a bad precedent from a business perspective, and from a human perspective, especially since kids subconsciously take in so much from the messages sent via sports.

 

I think it is a cancerous, divisive message, and I think it needs to stop. And no, I obviously do not support it.

[Llevron]

 

1 hour ago, Yohan said:

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.

 

This basically comes down to luck though right? No one knew Favre would be Favre or he would have went first over all. Same with Tommy Terrific. It either takes a coach that no one saw coming or a player no one saw coming or a combination of both these days. You have to get lucky AND know what you are doing. Its not easy to do. Look at the Eagles. If they didn't pick up the QB they got rid of years ago would they have won it all? Not likely. 

 

1 hour ago, Yohan said:

 

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.

 

The Bucks didn't commit to the process. Its a joke cause they said it so much but seriously you have to commit to losing if you plan to use it to win. Not saying its a good idea all the time by any stretch. But some teams it is honestly their best chance to win. If the bucks had the first pick in the draft this year there outlook for the nest few would be brighter. Its hard to question that. 

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Ohio has never been Miami in terms of location, but once upon a time the Browns were totally winning championships.  In the not to distant past, Foxboro was a hell hole that no one wanted anything to do with. This also doesn't explain why nobody wants to play for the Knicks or Lakers right now. I can keep going, but I'm going to skip Durant because he was on the fence coming home because of what he knew was going to be waiting for him when he did (and I'm not talking about basketball).  He turned his back on Ernie, not us, and I promise you it traces back to him doing stuff like putting a picture of KD on the jumbotron in a Wizards uniform.  We can get players like Pierce to come here because they take us seriously, but when we act like a second rate franchise, ya, it becomes a deterrent.

 

Paul Pierce came here cause he knew a shooter playing with Wall makes all the money the next season. And before you dismiss that he left us after a hell of a season to go to a coach he likes better in a city i'm sure he liked better. Its a thing. Rather it is applicable to every situation or not. Its a thing. 

 

Foxboro was a hell hole until they lucked up on the greatest coach of all time and the greatest QB of all time lol. 

 

How long ago was it that the Browns were winning championships? ****s changed significantly in the country and most definitely in the NFL since then. 

[Renegade7]

34 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

I think it is a cancerous, divisive message, and I think it needs to stop. And no, I obviously do not support it.

 

This is the point I keep coming back to.  This is bigger then "I'm fine with the Redskins doing this because we need a QB anyway" arguement.  If a significant number of teams start taking this approach, then what?  I like @PeterMP idea of punishing teams that aren't competitive, and I'd go further to say we should punish teams even more if they tank. Life isn't fair, figure it out.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Tanking as a long-term strategy is dumb and largely does not work.

 

Tanking in a specific moment when roster and available talent line-up is something I can get behind as long as some effort is maybe made at first. I think any team that goes into a year with a plan to tank should be fined in some way by the league. I mean, the Spurs became the Spurs largely because they happened to be bad twice in the last 40 years and both those years had a transcendent player available at #1. So, they made themselves really bad in those moments and voila.

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

Paul Pierce came here cause he knew a shooter playing with Wall makes all the money the next season. And before you dismiss that he left us after a hell of a season to go to a coach he likes better in a city i'm sure he liked better. Its a thing. Rather it is applicable to every situation or not. Its a thing. 

 

Foxboro was a hell hole until they lucked up on the greatest coach of all time and the greatest QB of all time lol. 

 

How long ago was it that the Browns were winning championships? ****s changed significantly in the country and most definitely in the NFL since then. 

 

Stop, Pierce came here to get a ring.  When he realized he wasn't going to get one here, he went home, and then what a season or two later retired because he was done and couldn't get a ring there either?  If we want to pick off former stars that are ring chasing, um, we have to look like we have a chance at a ring.  We had a brief glimpse of that, its not impossible for us to get back there.

 

Patriots went to the Super Bowl before BB and Brady showed up, I'm surprised but not surprised you went straight to that, thus missing my point on that entirely. I brought up the browns because you brought out the location thing.  What about the Lakers and the Knicks?  The Kansas City Royals are in the middle of nowhere compared to those locations and came out of nowhere anyway, and St. Louis has never been beachfront property in regards to the Cardinals.

 

For my fellow Wizards fans, do you believe we need blow up what we have to get over the top?  Keep in mind, Ernie is likely going to be one running it if we do.

4 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

So, they made themselves really bad in those moments and voila.

Just for clarification, did the Spurs really tank to get those guys?  What's the story behind those two draft picks?  Was the plan to get those two all the time prior to each respective draft (they were both #1 overall)?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Duncan pick was more obvious. They were a first place team with Robinson. Robinson got hurt, they started poorly, and they fired their coach and hired Pop. If I recall correctly, Robinson probably could have played a lot more that season, but they were all "No, just heal, man." Sean Elliot also seemed to miss a lot more games than he needed to.

 

The draft before Robinson, they were just sort of bad. I don't recall them actively tanking, but I don't really recall that as a thing at all in the 80s.

 

Boston openly tanked to get Duncan, finished with the worst record, and got the #3 pick.

[Dan T.]

The Redskins have been trying this for the last 20 years but - by winning a little too much - they can't even tank competently.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

The Duncan pick was more obvious. They were a first place team with Robinson. Robinson got hurt, they started poorly, and they fired their coach and hired Pop. If I recall correctly, Robinson probably could have played a lot more that season, but they were all "No, just heal, man." Sean Elliot also seemed to miss a lot more games than he needed to.

 

The draft before Robinson, they were just sort of bad. I don't recall them actively tanking, but I don't really recall that as a thing at all in the 80s.

 

Boston openly tanked to get Duncan, finished with the worst record, and got the #3 pick.

 

Thanks for the clarification. 

 

I guess I got to ask, was trying to protect Robinson more an attempt to keep the injury issue from being worse and lingering into another season, or "take a seat so we can get the highest pick possible"?  I guess what I'm getting at is that doesn't sounds anywhere close to what we're discussing here, but not too far off (again why I'm trying to make sure, because if I can't use them to make my point, I won't). 

 

Still, from what I can tell, they never did anything close to what the Sixers did and that's because they didn't need to, for the most part they knew what they were doing and stuck with it (basically had a blip or two where that didn't work, made the most of it, and that's it).

[Llevron]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Sometimes you just can't have it all. You can either choose to acknowledge this, throw away the entitlement, feel better as a result, root for your team, hold them accountable when they aren't performing, and let them know that at the very least, you expect them to give their best effort, from execs to players.

 

You can do all of that and still acknowledge that you can win by losing in the NBA. 

 

I mean, listen. I want the Wiz to win every game. I want to see Wall and Beal and Otto and the rest play to their potential. But if I want them to win despite the GM they need to have more talent than the other teams either coaching or player wise. They aint getting it through the draft outside of top 3 selections. And no one who is anyone wants to come here and play in this city. They just dont. But they are too far along in the process to tank it now imo. Now they have to do what they can the best they can and accept the results. However if/when this fails I totally want to see them tank if for a few seasons if the right guys are coming out. 

 

Also you say this as a Heat fan. I would like to see you say this as a fan of say....THE REDSKINS (jokes lol) 

 

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is the point I keep coming back to.  This is bigger then "I'm fine with the Redskins doing this because we need a QB anyway" arguement.  If a significant number of teams start taking this approach, then what?  I like @PeterMP idea of punishing teams that aren't competitive, and I'd go further to say we should punish teams even more if they tank. Life isn't fair, figure it out.

 

You start to punish teams for sucking and you are going to end up with a few permanently ****ty teams at the bottom of your sport of choice. As long as you are cool with that then I guess there is not problem with it. 

 

We should totally punish teams that tank. If they did that we wouldn't even be having the conversation. Problem is how do you prove it? 

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Stop, Pierce came here to get a ring. 

 

You really think that? Lol

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

When he realized he wasn't going to get one here, he went home, and then what a season or two later retired because he was done and couldn't get a ring there either?  If we want to pick off former stars that are ring chasing, um, we have to look like we have a chance at a ring.  We had a brief glimpse of that, its not impossible for us to get back there.

 

You are trippin. What makes you think he legit came here thinking this was the ring stop over Cleveland. Or OKC. Or the Spurs. Or the Lakers. Or the Warriors. Seriously you have on Wiz kid glasses. Even I didn't think they legit had a chance WITH him. Our max was pushing Cleveland to a game 6 thats it. No way he came here thinking he was going to win it all. Of course he said it. But no way he came here for just a ring and you know that. 

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Patriots went to the Super Bowl before BB and Brady showed up, I'm surprised but not surprised you went straight to that, thus missing my point on that entirely.

 

What was the point then? That Foxboro won before Tom and Bill? Ok and? Why does that mean tanking it doesn't work? 

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I brought up the browns because you brought out the location thing.  What about the Lakers and the Knicks?  The Kansas City Royals are in the middle of nowhere compared to those locations and came out of nowhere anyway, and St. Louis has never been beachfront property in regards to the Cardinals.

 

Im not saying you have to tank. Im saying its a valid strategy in some cases. Just as valid as waiting for a once in a generational talent to walk through the door and change everything. Im not sure people dont want to play for the Lakers. I dont know where you are getting that from. Im not sure that people dont want to play for the Kicks either. I think both teams have made many poor management decisions and thats been their biggest issue. 

 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

For my fellow Wizards fans, do you believe we need blow up what we have to get over the top?  Keep in mind, Ernie is likely going to be one running it if we do.

 

No. We are in a spot that we have one of the better talents in the game in his prime. Wasting a season is wasting a shot and a year of a great talent. We may never see someone like John Wall in DC ever again. you dont waste those years even if only to look back and say what we could have done. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I spoke only to the NFL, because that's my favorite sport, Redskins football that is.  NBA is second, followed by MLB then NHL for the big four American sports.  It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the Redskins tanked some of those years in the past.  Again, I wouldn't sit there and actively root for it to happen, but wouldn't toss in my fan card and stop following the team if they did.  And those 100% against teams doing that, I completely understand that take on the subject.

 

As far as the NBA is concerned, are we so sure that the lottery draft isn't rigged when they want it to be?  I have a huge problem trusting a process that is behind closed doors, where the draft order is determined.  Regardless of team reps being present, etc.  Call me a conspiracy nut if needed, but I honestly think that the whole "draft lottery" is a smoke screen for the league and teams to determine who picks in what spot when they decide they need to intervene with the process.  Thus it being secret and in private.  Does it get tampered with every year?  Maybe not every year, but it sure does make you wonder when certain teams without the best odds magically get the top pick that just happened to have lost stud players or a new owner buys a team, etc.  

 

MLB, just too many games, it matters, but meh, I'm not so sure that tanking is the best approach (granted, I don't keep up with the MLB draft really much at all).  Sure, worst teams get higher picks, but with the farm systems in place and free agency, teams can acquire pieces to make them better.

 

NHL - feel free to inform me if tanking helps or how much it helps.  I watch and love the game, but never really follow off-season moves/drafts/etc., so really just root for my team and keep up with their transactions.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

the NFL is different because you have larger rosters, more draft rounds and can more easily find a diamond in the rough. Having said that, if you are a forever 6-9 win team in the NFL forever, your best bet in most cases is to burn it down and accumulate as many draft picks as possible. i envy what the Browns have done. Even if they blow all the picks, it doesn't make the strategy a bad idea. It would simply be an example of good process/bad result. The Redskins had a chance to build around Cousins and they screwed it up. This should have signaled a full rebuild with the goal to stockpile draft picks and cap space similar to how the Browns did. Instead we threw a bunch of band-aids on the team and we have no chance to win a Super Bowl and will be too good to get an elite talent at the top of the draft. 

 

To recap my original point, in the NBA you absolutely need stars to win. There are only 3 ways you can get stars in the NBA: Free agency, trades and the draft. If you want them to sign in free agency you need to be a destination city/franchise or you need to have another star that free agents want to play with.

 

You need high draft picks in most cases to trade for a star and you obviously need high picks in order to draft a star. The NBA draft isn't like the NFL draft. Most superstars and basically all transcendent players are taken extremely early in the draft. The worst thing you can be in the NBA is a perennial 5th-8th seed or a team that just misses the playoffs. You are destined to suck forever because you aren't good enough to win a title and you aren't good enough to change your fortunes in the draft. You have to rely on free agency to somehow put you over the top to be a legit title contender. It can happen but it isn't likely. 

 

I wouldn't fault any team for trading players or playing young guys in effort to tank. Always take the short term loss for a long term gain. The goal isn't to win 38-45 games and throw a parade of how competitive and try-hardy the season was. The goal is to win championships.

[Renegade7]

@Llevron

 

This isn't over, brotha : )

 

[Llevron]

Oh I know. Thats what makes it fun lol

[Kosher Ham]

Just now, Llevron said:

Oh I know. Thats what makes it fun lol

 

Time to give him The Rock meme. 

Just bring it. 

[Riggo#44]

On September 18, 2008, the Nationals, Padres, and Mariners were the worst teams in MLB, sitting at 58-95, 58-95, and 57-95 respectively. The Nationals would finish the year going 1-7, securing the top overall pick, followed by the Mariners (finshing 4-6), and the Padres would finish 5-4, for the third overall pick:

 

First overall was Steven Strasburg, second was Dustin Ackley, and third was Donovan Tate. Mike Trout was 25th overall. So, I'd prefer to do what the Phillies, Braves, White Sox did, as opposed to the SF Giants; but you have to have the competency in the front office to execute the plan effectively.

[Springfield]

The Patriots went to the Super Bowl 2 times before Brady and Belichick.  They have been to the Super Bowl 8 times since.

 

The Patriots were a laughing stock until Bill Parcells gave them a glimmer of hope.

 

Gtfo with that “New England was a decent place before Brady and B.B.” bs.  It was a hell hole, nobody wanted to play there, and it was a coin flip away from being relocated to a different city.  They were worse than the Browns are now.

 

(I don’t know how this relates to the subject, but a few posts above incensed me a bit)

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

The Patriots were a laughing stock until Bill Parcells gave them a glimmer of hope.

 

Gtfo with that “New England was a decent place before Brady and B.B.” bs.  It was a hell hole, nobody wanted to play there, and it was a coin flip away from being relocated to a different city.  They were worse than the Browns are now.

@Llevron  This was my point concerning New England, btw 

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@Llevron  This was my point concerning New England, btw 

 

They might not have been as bad as the Browns are now.  But you get the point.  The Patriots were really really bad.

 

And let’s remember, the Browns don’t have a history really.  They are just an expansion team that the NFL **** out in 1999.  They have been **** on since day one.  The Ravens have won a Super Bowl or two since moving from Cleveland.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Why are we even discussing the Patriots.

 

This thread is lame and I'm not re-reading back that far.

[AsburySkinsFan]

8 hours ago, Springfield said:

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.

Success does not follow a culture of losing. You cannot build a winning culture by cultivating a strategy of losing. 

It is said that money follows management, meaning that people will invest where winning leadership is active. How do you sell to your team that you are going to sacrifice their careers (stats, accomplishments) in the hopes of getting an unproven player? That’s mortgaging the farm the buy lotto tickets.

[Springfield]

34 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Success does not follow a culture of losing. You cannot build a winning culture by cultivating a strategy of losing. 

It is said that money follows management, meaning that people will invest where winning leadership is active. How do you sell to your team that you are going to sacrifice their careers (stats, accomplishments) in the hopes of getting an unproven player? That’s mortgaging the farm the buy lotto tickets.

 

Not sure why you chose me to quote, but I’ll expand a little.  I suppose the term “tank” is subjective.

 

When I hear “tank”, I think of a coach who actually causes their team to lose on purpose by calling plays or playing certain players so that they’ll lose.  I hate this and think it’s abhorrent.

 

Im in favor of a “rebuild”. Take a season or two.  Unload all of your expensive players, who are likely veterans.  Trade for extra draft picks.  Free up cap space.  This will likely mean that the team performs poorly for that season or two.  Then, stock up on youth.

 

One thing I think is true across all major sports is that youth and vigor are the way of the future.  Speed.  Plus, they’re cheap to begin with.

 

Once you have your youthful core and you are winning, you restock with more picks and calculatedly eliminate veterans who become too expensive.  It’s like a revolving door of talent.  There has to be a proper formula to this, but it all starts with losing for a couple seasons at least.

[AsburySkinsFan]

44 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Not sure why you chose me to quote, but I’ll expand a little.  I suppose the term “tank” is subjective.

 

When I hear “tank”, I think of a coach who actually causes their team to lose on purpose by calling plays or playing certain players so that they’ll lose.  I hate this and think it’s abhorrent.

 

Im in favor of a “rebuild”. Take a season or two.  Unload all of your expensive players, who are likely veterans.  Trade for extra draft picks.  Free up cap space.  This will likely mean that the team performs poorly for that season or two.  Then, stock up on youth.

 

One thing I think is true across all major sports is that youth and vigor are the way of the future.  Speed.  Plus, they’re cheap to begin with.

 

Once you have your youthful core and you are winning, you restock with more picks and calculatedly eliminate veterans who become too expensive.  It’s like a revolving door of talent.  There has to be a proper formula to this, but it all starts with losing for a couple seasons at least.

I understand cap space decisions but to actively CHOOSE to lose is an anathema to me. It is absolutely against the spirit of compettition as I understand it. 

As I said earlier, this discussion ONLY happens in American sports where the pro-teams are awarded permanent and irrevocable tenue. They don’t have to play for anything because they risk NOTHING. The Browns, Lions, and Redskins have been factories of sadness for decades and yet their season ticket sales are constant. 

Because we have chosen to reward pathetic performance.