http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ppose-tanking/
You know, most of us think that the Kevin Garnett trade helped wash away Tim Donaghy's sins. But don't forget, it also made us forget the Celts' quasi-tanking, and the just desserts they got served on lottery night. Now that the tanking discussion has cooled down, Mark Cuban's decided to weigh in.
From FOX Sports Radio, via Larry Brown Sports:
Michael Irvin: "I can dance with you all day right there, it sounds like you're saying I'd rather just tank a couple games, but I won't even go there Mark, let's move on."
Cuban: "I'll be the first to admit Michael, I would tank a lot of games."
Irvin "You would tank games? Mark wait, you would tank games to get the first pick in the draft?"
Cuban: "Yes, yes see it depends on where you are."
According to LB, the context for these comments was thus: Cuban argued that teams stuck in the late lottery or bottom rung of the playoffs would do well to tank. There's a lot of sense to this; picking up a bargain starter is the greatest gift of them all, and this kind of tanking doesn't depend so acutely on exact draft position.
If your team has no shot and you know it, then it makes sense. Especially when you can get a guaranteed franchise player like Oden or Durant. The year before it made no sense to tank, but this past season with the strength of the draft, I don't blame Boston one bit for tanking. It didn't work out for them like they hoped, but tanking still netted them Ray Allen.
Well, he was specifically talking about .500 teams -- not good enough to do major damage and make a deep run, but not bad enough to have a good chance at getting the top pick.
They almost all tank, no angle here about Cuban being the only one thinking this way.
A strange 2007 non-tank was the Sixers. Headed for the Oden Sweepstakes they traded AI. Instead of moving Andre Miller they went a little over .500 the final month and a half to finish 11th or so in the Lotto.
I don't get that.
They had some wierd thing called pride I guess. Stupid teams.
We sucked in 96, but there's no doubt we purposely sucked harder to get Duncan, brought us FOUR rings. Smart move to do it.
Is there a difference between actively trying to lose games, and not doing everything to try to win meaningless games? If I were a coach, I wouldn't put my star player on the floor with a nagging injury or put my starters back on the floor late in the fourth quarter when the opponent makes a comeback if the team was completely out of playoff contention. Is that tanking?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
