duncan228
01-14-2010, 01:22 PM
Lucas Admits Cavs Tanked to Get LeBron (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-lucasadmitscavstanke&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews
We all know teams tank to get coveted draft prospects, and there has been no more obvious example than that of the 2002-03 Cavs submarining their season to have a better chance at LeBron James.
But while everyone expected it at the time, no one from the Cavs (or any team, really) has ever admitted to it. Now, seven seasons after the fact, ex-Cavs head coach and current Clippers assistant John Lucas has come clean to FanHouse’s Chris Tomasson (http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/01/13/john-lucas-cavs-tanked-to-get-lebron/):
"They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,” Lucas said in an interview with FanHouse. "I didn’t have a chance. … You can’t fault the Cavaliers for wanting to get LeBron. It was hard to get free agents to come there.”
Gordon Gund, then the principal owner and now a Cavaliers’ minority owner, denied the team was tanking during that 17-65 season to get James, who would go to Cleveland with the No. 1 pick after it won the 2003 draft lottery. Gund also denied the team then was for sale, a move that wouldn’t happen until 2005.
There are a few notable aspects of this story. First, Lucas admits that this was the smartest path for the franchise to take, an argument you don’t hear often amidst the rampant moralizing that surrounds tanking. As I argued Tuesday, though, tanking is usually the right move (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/51596/the_free_agents_of_%EF%BF%BD10_throw_wrinkle_into_ time-honored_tradition_of_tanking), and the Cavs’ success with LeBron only supports their decision. The perspective of bygone seasons helps.
However, there is an important psychological aspect I forgot to note on Tuesday. More from Lucas:
"I’m angry because I should be a big boy because I got paid a lot of money (Lucas was fired with 1 ½ years left on his contract). But you want a chance to be able to be there for a while. You knew what the mission was. You just hoped you could get there to get that.” […]
"I didn’t know until you get into the inner loop, after you take the job, what their real mission is. … So I was really beat up from the Cleveland situation and so it took me this long to be back (in the NBA).”
As Lucas sees it, the Cavs weren’t honest about their plans when he took the job the prior season and was essentially fired for doing what they wanted him to do—lose as many games as possible. If accurate, that lack of honesty is the real killer here. No coach or player wants to be in the basketball version of the The Producers, and the competitiveness necessary to succeed in professional sports means that losing is one of the worst fates imaginable.
So if you’re going to subject a roster to a season in the wilderness, you have to convince them there’s a forthcoming promised land. Otherwise, you’re treating your employees like pawns. In that case, it’s no wonder the bitterness and disappointment would remain long after the fact.
SportingNews
We all know teams tank to get coveted draft prospects, and there has been no more obvious example than that of the 2002-03 Cavs submarining their season to have a better chance at LeBron James.
But while everyone expected it at the time, no one from the Cavs (or any team, really) has ever admitted to it. Now, seven seasons after the fact, ex-Cavs head coach and current Clippers assistant John Lucas has come clean to FanHouse’s Chris Tomasson (http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/01/13/john-lucas-cavs-tanked-to-get-lebron/):
"They trade all our guys away and we go real young, and the goal was to get LeBron and also to sell the team,” Lucas said in an interview with FanHouse. "I didn’t have a chance. … You can’t fault the Cavaliers for wanting to get LeBron. It was hard to get free agents to come there.”
Gordon Gund, then the principal owner and now a Cavaliers’ minority owner, denied the team was tanking during that 17-65 season to get James, who would go to Cleveland with the No. 1 pick after it won the 2003 draft lottery. Gund also denied the team then was for sale, a move that wouldn’t happen until 2005.
There are a few notable aspects of this story. First, Lucas admits that this was the smartest path for the franchise to take, an argument you don’t hear often amidst the rampant moralizing that surrounds tanking. As I argued Tuesday, though, tanking is usually the right move (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/51596/the_free_agents_of_%EF%BF%BD10_throw_wrinkle_into_ time-honored_tradition_of_tanking), and the Cavs’ success with LeBron only supports their decision. The perspective of bygone seasons helps.
However, there is an important psychological aspect I forgot to note on Tuesday. More from Lucas:
"I’m angry because I should be a big boy because I got paid a lot of money (Lucas was fired with 1 ½ years left on his contract). But you want a chance to be able to be there for a while. You knew what the mission was. You just hoped you could get there to get that.” […]
"I didn’t know until you get into the inner loop, after you take the job, what their real mission is. … So I was really beat up from the Cleveland situation and so it took me this long to be back (in the NBA).”
As Lucas sees it, the Cavs weren’t honest about their plans when he took the job the prior season and was essentially fired for doing what they wanted him to do—lose as many games as possible. If accurate, that lack of honesty is the real killer here. No coach or player wants to be in the basketball version of the The Producers, and the competitiveness necessary to succeed in professional sports means that losing is one of the worst fates imaginable.
So if you’re going to subject a roster to a season in the wilderness, you have to convince them there’s a forthcoming promised land. Otherwise, you’re treating your employees like pawns. In that case, it’s no wonder the bitterness and disappointment would remain long after the fact.