duncan228
01-12-2010, 03:35 PM
The Free Agents of ’10 Throw Wrinkle into Time-Honored Tradition of Tanking (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-thefreeagentsofthrow&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews
As we inch closer to the All-Star break and trade deadline, the NBA’s wheat is beginning to separate from the chaff. The true playoff contenders become clearer, optimism turns into grudging acceptance, and also-rans begin to reevaluate their priorities. It’s a tradition as old as the hair on Gregg Popovich’s chin.
In a typical year, it’d also be time for a good third of the league to tank to improve draft position, and especially this season with godsend point guard John Wall lurking at Kentucky. But with the oasis of the 2010 free-agent class on the horizon, there’s another trend at play this season: a sort of reverse-tanking that sees several teams playing veterans in order to make the current team as attractive as possible for prospective free agents.
The concept is simple. When available money is equal, free agents are more likely to sign with the team most prepared to make a serious championship run. In order to seem like a squad one superstar away from being a juggernaut, cap-heavy teams play their veterans to stay as competitive as possible in every game. Free agents will then analyze the situation, decide that basketball nirvana is imminent and sign on the dotted line as soon as god and country allow.
That’s how it works in theory, at least. Never mind that in many cases the veterans are playing with expiring contracts, two or three years removed from their primes or just not that good to begin with. The important thing is that teams keep up appearances until they reach the promised land.
In most cases, observers have accepted this tactic with little outrage. In sharp contrast to the reaction to the more typical form of tanking, people have absolutely no problem with teams like the Knicks and Nets putting off substantive rebuilding for two seasons so they can have a shot at the likes of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. Superstars of that caliber are so rarely available that you need to do everything in your power to get them.
In a way, this is the opposite of regular tanking: teams are maximizing their present-day competitiveness, which is exactly what people want to see from franchises that pack it in, in hopes of landing a high draft pick. But this isn’t why anyone accepts reverse-tanking—it’s it’s all about putting the team in the best possible position to get a superstar. Essentially, it’s about long-term interests.
So why does everyone get in an uproar about tanking for the draft? As recently as three years ago, ahead of the supposedly emancipatory Oden/Durant draft class, columnists were proposing systems that would reward teams that don’t shut down their veterans at the first sign of injury, including end-of-season tournaments and reverse-lotteries in which the worst teams would actually have the worst chance at nabbing the top pick. Fans deserve to see the best available product every time out, the thinking goes, and any attempt to deny them such a gift is an act of moral torpitude. The Boston fans deserved Paul Pierce alongside Sebastian Telfair in 2007, no matter the cost.
But tanking is as much about a team’s future success as any drive to play veterans to make the team look more attractive. For one thing, there’s little sense in risking serious injury to a team’s best players during a lost season, especially when they’re at an advanced age. Plus, the draft, while a crapshoot, is usually a more dependable path to success than free agency or trades for failing teams. In recent memory, only Orlando’s signings of Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady stand out as an example of a lottery team making what seemed like a league-altering splash during the summer, and the Cavs might not have LeBron today if they hadn’t submarined their 2002-03 campaign.
What the tanking outrage also assumes is that fans have absolutely no perspective and can only analyze their team’s livelihood from game to game. While patience isn’t exactly a common trait among fans, it’s silly to assume they don’t look into the future, or even that they enjoy watching the potential future of the franchise play in the midst of an already lost season. Tanking isn’t just about the draft, after all—it’s also about finding out what you have in every nook and cranny of the current roster. In fact, it’s not out of the question that Knicks and Nets fans would actually get upset at their coaches not giving players like Jordan Hill and Terrence Williams more minutes.
Keep this in mind as the season progresses. The Knicks have already established their plan, but as more teams realize just how good John Wall is, the tankers should come out in full force. When they do, remember that the long term well-being of a franchise is often built on the foundation of purposely lost games. This is not a moral failing, but simply the state of play in a league where success must be obtained by any available means.
SportingNews
As we inch closer to the All-Star break and trade deadline, the NBA’s wheat is beginning to separate from the chaff. The true playoff contenders become clearer, optimism turns into grudging acceptance, and also-rans begin to reevaluate their priorities. It’s a tradition as old as the hair on Gregg Popovich’s chin.
In a typical year, it’d also be time for a good third of the league to tank to improve draft position, and especially this season with godsend point guard John Wall lurking at Kentucky. But with the oasis of the 2010 free-agent class on the horizon, there’s another trend at play this season: a sort of reverse-tanking that sees several teams playing veterans in order to make the current team as attractive as possible for prospective free agents.
The concept is simple. When available money is equal, free agents are more likely to sign with the team most prepared to make a serious championship run. In order to seem like a squad one superstar away from being a juggernaut, cap-heavy teams play their veterans to stay as competitive as possible in every game. Free agents will then analyze the situation, decide that basketball nirvana is imminent and sign on the dotted line as soon as god and country allow.
That’s how it works in theory, at least. Never mind that in many cases the veterans are playing with expiring contracts, two or three years removed from their primes or just not that good to begin with. The important thing is that teams keep up appearances until they reach the promised land.
In most cases, observers have accepted this tactic with little outrage. In sharp contrast to the reaction to the more typical form of tanking, people have absolutely no problem with teams like the Knicks and Nets putting off substantive rebuilding for two seasons so they can have a shot at the likes of LeBron, Wade, and Bosh. Superstars of that caliber are so rarely available that you need to do everything in your power to get them.
In a way, this is the opposite of regular tanking: teams are maximizing their present-day competitiveness, which is exactly what people want to see from franchises that pack it in, in hopes of landing a high draft pick. But this isn’t why anyone accepts reverse-tanking—it’s it’s all about putting the team in the best possible position to get a superstar. Essentially, it’s about long-term interests.
So why does everyone get in an uproar about tanking for the draft? As recently as three years ago, ahead of the supposedly emancipatory Oden/Durant draft class, columnists were proposing systems that would reward teams that don’t shut down their veterans at the first sign of injury, including end-of-season tournaments and reverse-lotteries in which the worst teams would actually have the worst chance at nabbing the top pick. Fans deserve to see the best available product every time out, the thinking goes, and any attempt to deny them such a gift is an act of moral torpitude. The Boston fans deserved Paul Pierce alongside Sebastian Telfair in 2007, no matter the cost.
But tanking is as much about a team’s future success as any drive to play veterans to make the team look more attractive. For one thing, there’s little sense in risking serious injury to a team’s best players during a lost season, especially when they’re at an advanced age. Plus, the draft, while a crapshoot, is usually a more dependable path to success than free agency or trades for failing teams. In recent memory, only Orlando’s signings of Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady stand out as an example of a lottery team making what seemed like a league-altering splash during the summer, and the Cavs might not have LeBron today if they hadn’t submarined their 2002-03 campaign.
What the tanking outrage also assumes is that fans have absolutely no perspective and can only analyze their team’s livelihood from game to game. While patience isn’t exactly a common trait among fans, it’s silly to assume they don’t look into the future, or even that they enjoy watching the potential future of the franchise play in the midst of an already lost season. Tanking isn’t just about the draft, after all—it’s also about finding out what you have in every nook and cranny of the current roster. In fact, it’s not out of the question that Knicks and Nets fans would actually get upset at their coaches not giving players like Jordan Hill and Terrence Williams more minutes.
Keep this in mind as the season progresses. The Knicks have already established their plan, but as more teams realize just how good John Wall is, the tankers should come out in full force. When they do, remember that the long term well-being of a franchise is often built on the foundation of purposely lost games. This is not a moral failing, but simply the state of play in a league where success must be obtained by any available means.