Phx-Suns.Net

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:The Spurs didn't really tank. They lost Robinson and Person for the whole year and Elliott played like half the season, they just weren't very good w/o 3 of their top players.

Exactly. You lose your top 3 players, when one is a hall of famer, you aren't going to be in contention. When you aren't in contention, you build for the future by playing the unknowns to see what they have. It usually means losing more than filling out the roster with cast-off vets from other teams, but pays much higher dividends down the road (if you are smart). That's what they did.

And Bob Hill got fired for it.

Cap wrote:And Bob Hill got fired for it.

Worked out well for us.

TheOriginalOriginal wrote:

Cap wrote:And Bob Hill got fired for it.

Worked out well for us.

LOL!

Cap wrote:And Bob Hill got fired for it.

Kind of. Remember it was Pop that fired him and took over. Sure he was fired, but it was only 20 games into the season. So it wasn't like he was fired because of a season of losing and developing the young guys. He was fired because they felt he lost the team after having the best record in the league the year before, and losing to Houston in the playoffs.

The Spurs had injuries but if I am not mistaken, Robinson could have played at the end of the season and they 'saved' him given that it was a lost season. I don't know about Elliot and others.

Ring_Wanted wrote:The Spurs had injuries but if I am not mistaken, Robinson could have played at the end of the season and they 'saved' him given that it was a lost season. I don't know about Elliot and others.

Yeah, I think he could have come back some time after the all-star break. But since they break usually comes about 50 games into the season, it wouldn't have mattered. At that point, you play the young guys and let them learn.

Interesting bit on the Dragan Bender
http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2016/ ... e-power-of

They pretty much come to the same conclusion as many of us in that he is the Jack of all trades, King of none.

Don't really agree with their potential player comparison. The guys they say he may pan out to be, actually had certain strengths before coming into the league. Hedo was a good shooter, Kukoc was playing pg for his national team at a young age. If the Dragan Bender had just one clear strength, I wouldn't be as nervous about us picking him up.

Also his floor could easily be along the lines of darko or skita rather than just being a solid role player.

If we pick 5th and he is still on the board, I would take him. I know nothing about the draft except what you guys contribute here, but if only Simmons and Ingram are some sort of sure thing, let's swing for the fences with our pick. Alex and Bender could complement each other very well.

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:The Spurs had injuries but if I am not mistaken, Robinson could have played at the end of the season and they 'saved' him given that it was a lost season. I don't know about Elliot and others.

Yeah, I think he could have come back some time after the all-star break. But since they break usually comes about 50 games into the season, it wouldn't have mattered. At that point, you play the young guys and let them learn.

So what you're saying is.....if I'm getting this right.......they tanked games for the sake of the future?? AND it netted them Tim Duncan?!?

specialsauce wrote:

Indy wrote:

Ring_Wanted wrote:The Spurs had injuries but if I am not mistaken, Robinson could have played at the end of the season and they 'saved' him given that it was a lost season. I don't know about Elliot and others.

Yeah, I think he could have come back some time after the all-star break. But since they break usually comes about 50 games into the season, it wouldn't have mattered. At that point, you play the young guys and let them learn.

So what you're saying is.....if I'm getting this right.......they tanked games for the sake of the future?? AND it netted them Tim Duncan?!?

That is exactly what I said.

I don't know why people are so eager to try to brand the Spurs pre-Duncan as "tanking." Yeah, they had a really miserable season right before they got Duncan. And yeah, they probably could have rushed Robinson back. But why? So he could gimp around and maybe win them a few more games, and possibly risk his health, while they still didn't make the playoffs? Let's not forget that the Spurs didn't have the best odds to win the #1 pick that year; the Celtics (who were also openly tanking) did. But the lottery balls didn't bounce that way. I don't think San Antonio did anything dirty or unfair to get Duncan. They had legit injuries and they let the players take their time recovering from them because their season was lost anyway. So what?

Mori Chu wrote:I don't know why people are so eager to try to brand the Spurs pre-Duncan as "tanking." Yeah, they had a really miserable season right before they got Duncan. And yeah, they probably could have rushed Robinson back. But why? So he could gimp around and maybe win them a few more games, and possibly risk his health, while they still didn't make the playoffs? Let's not forget that the Spurs didn't have the best odds to win the #1 pick that year; the Celtics (who were also openly tanking) did. But the lottery balls didn't bounce that way. I don't think San Antonio did anything dirty or unfair to get Duncan. They had legit injuries and they let the players take their time recovering from them because their season was lost anyway. So what?

Well said.

Actually the worst record was held by Vancouver but they couldn't get the #1 pick anyway as per expansion rules.

If you don't use your best available resources to win games, that constitutes tanking in my book. I guess you can distinguish between structural and circumstancial tanking, or say dirty and 'loyal' tanking. Lost seasons past a certain point are a idoneous pretext to not risk wounded players but it doesn't make it any less 'tanky'.

I guess it just depends on how you define tanking. I think of tanking as intentionally trying to lose games. To me, that is different than not trying to win games at all costs. Is it tanking when a team decides to give a player another week to recover from an injury, even if the docs say he is good to go today? I don't think so, but it seems you would, Ring. Am I right about that?

By the way, can you tell this season was a complete lost-cause for us, if we are arguing about what tanking is?

Sorry, IMO you're either trying to win games or you're not. They held the Admiral out when he was good to go, at that point they decided they didn't care about winning games the rest of the year.

And it got them Duncan.

We hold out Tucker, Chandler, Price for those last ten games? Who knows, maybe we snatch the first pick and our future outlook changes in a split second. Maybe we still do, but we certainly didn't set ourselves up for success.

No one asked me, but tanking is losing games on purpose. It means if you hold out someone healthy in the hopes of losing the game, you are tanking. It's a bit of a contradiction in my mind. I'll not openly root for the Suns to play poorly and lose a game, yet I'm fine with them sitting veterans in order to develop younger players once the season is lost. Once those younger players are on the court I'll root for them to win. It is, by my own definition, outright tanking though. I guess that means I'm pro-tanking in a way.

And it got them Duncan.

Winning a lottery got them Duncan, and a lottery in which they were not favored to win.

Sorry, IMO you're either trying to win games or you're not.

I understand that perspective. But I think there is a different between trying to win, not trying to win, trying to lose. I think not trying to win now, in hopes of teaching young players something, or determining who should be on your team the next year, isn't the same as trying to lose.

For me the context matters a lot. Say your record is 20-52. You have some injured vet who is basically cleared to play even though his body is not 100%. Your season is crap anyway. You have nothing to play for. Do you rush the vet back in for those last 10 games? If not, are you tanking? In my mind, it's fine to leave a guy like that out.

Say you're 25-45. You have young guys on the bench who are a little green. You have veterans who are a bit more seasoned but won't be with the team much longer. But the vets could probably eke you out 1-2 more wins. Do you play the vets, or do you play the younglings? In my mind, it's fine to play the young guys and give them the reps.

Say you're 38-37. You could go all out in your last five games and try to win. This might get you the 8th playoff spot, but the 1 seed looks dominant. Do you go for it, or do you relax in those last 5 games and take a lottery pick that has a very tiny percentage chance of winning the lotto? Is it tanking if you let yourself lose those last 5 games? In my mind, yes, it is. If you rest those games without having any other major reason to, you're tanking. Getting a "lottery" pick that is like #14 is almost worthless compared to getting #15-16 and making the playoffs and getting playoff experience.

Say you're Philly. You trade away good young players who can help the team so you can get questionable future draft picks and clear cap space that you don't plan to use anyway. It causes you to drop from, say, 18-20 wins to 9-10 wins. Is that tanking? In my mind, YES. They are actively setting up their team so as not to win. Even if the remaining players and coach try their darnedest to win each night after that, the GM and front office tanked the roster.