First, if we were to lose every game from here on out, which is not really possible unless we tried to lose those games, we would still not be sure to get a player that would 1) necessarily fit our needs, i.e. another bigman that can rebound, block shots, and score outside the paint. We have already won too many games to effectively tank.
Second, the Jazz are not contending. Maybe you don't keep up with the news, but they are having major injury problems that make them a big question mark.
New Orleans? They are not looking like they improved from last year. Paul is playing great, but I think they have not proven they are in a different class than the Spurs. If we are playing as well as we have so far, and if Manu continues to recover, we are fine against them.
Lakers: Well, you have to give them that they are very deep, great scorers and they CAN turn up the defensive intensity to a great degree. But I"m not sold on them being clutch outside of Kobe, and if we can just survive their inside scoring, we should be ok. Realistically, I consider us significant underdogs, but we have the best chance in the west.
We do have talent on this roster outside of the big 3.
Bonner, Mason and Hill are all playing well this year. Bruce has finally started to show his age, but we have guys coming in next year anyway. Ian should be ready to try again next year from his fluke injuries. Ian, Hairston, Gist, and free agency?
Tanking makes sense when you have NO chance, and I don't think most Spurs fans, much less the coach, think that is the case. Each year, probably 80% of the teams have NO chance to win; should they all be tanking? Maybe the Spurs are now underdogs, but underdogs do sometimes win it (see Spurs 03, 05).
If you are close, you are foolish to just blow it up. And that is what it would take to legitimately "tank." We would have to sell off Manu, Parker, and Probably Mason in order to start actually losing enough to get into the lottery.
Sorry, but this is just idiotic.