Tanking...is it worth it?

[jho]

I realize how prevalent tanking has been recently, particularly in baseball and how it looks like teams are giving up before the season has even began, it made me wonder what your thoughts about it are.

For example:


Would you prefer a team that has a decade of great teams, but never wins a championship?
Or would you prefer a team that sucked for 9 years, but was good enough to win a championship for 1 year?


Where is the cutoff point for you?

 

[nmate]

pretty epic tanking going on in the nba this year. you still have to draft well so it's never a guarantee.

 

[nmate]

oh, and to answer your question. the team that won a championship for sure.

 

[jho]

oh, and to answer your question. the team that won a championship for sure.

What if the choice was a decade of excellence culminating in one title.


Or a decade where you stink except for 2 seasons where you won 2 titles.


Which decade would you prefer for your team? That's kind of the question I'm pointing towards, at what point is the cutoff for you? Are you okay with any magnitude of terrible season/s as long as it leads to a title?

 

[OzExorcist]

I think it depends a lot on the sport being played, how it's done, and how long it goes on for.

A few years of suckitude to build a solid base of draft picks and whatever for the future? Sure I could be on board with that. You'd want to know the people making the decisions know what they're doing though. As pointed out above, you still have to hit on the right draft picks though.

How viable tanking is depends a lot on the sport too. I definitely don't think it's a viable long-term strategy in the NFL, for example, because careers there are short, seasons are short and injury rates are high. If you go on a multi-year tanking program in the NFL (like the Browns appear to be doing), the guys you acquired early in the process will either be moving on, or be out of their cost-effective rookie contracts before you're ready to start actually winning.

 

[jho]

I think it depends a lot on the sport being played, how it's done, and how long it goes on for.

A few years of suckitude to build a solid base of draft picks and whatever for the future? Sure I could be on board with that. You'd want to know the people making the decisions know what they're doing though. As pointed out above, you still have to hit on the right draft picks though.

How viable tanking is depends a lot on the sport too. I definitely don't think it's a viable long-term strategy in the NFL, for example, because careers there are short, seasons are short and injury rates are high. If you go on a multi-year tanking program in the NFL (like the Browns appear to be doing), the guys you acquired early in the process will either be moving on, or be out of their cost-effective rookie contracts before you're ready to start actually winning.

This is a great point regarding the NFL. It's really the one league I could see almost any team going from worst to first depending on the off-season going well.

 

[OzExorcist]

This is a great point regarding the NFL. It's really the one league I could see almost any team going from worst to first depending on the off-season going well.

And vice versa LOL.


I mean, nobody would have picked the Jags to make the AFC Championship game at the start of last season, but it happened. The Rams went from being a mess to making the playoffs. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen with the Niners next season.


The meta-game for being successful in the NFL at the moment really does seem to revolve around getting the right mix of quality cheap players through the draft and then matching them with the right higher-priced veterans. Seattle won the Superbowl while they were paying Russell Wilson next to nothing on his rookie contract, for example.


That does mean you need to acquire some good draft picks though, either through trade or through tanking. I just don't think you can keep doing it for, say, five years in a row...

 

[nmate]

What if the choice was a decade of excellence culminating in one title.


Or a decade where you stink except for 2 seasons where you won 2 titles.


Which decade would you prefer for your team? That's kind of the question I'm pointing towards, at what point is the cutoff for you? Are you okay with any magnitude of terrible season/s as long as it leads to a title?

it's all about championships to me. i'd take 2 with 8 years of missing the playoffs.

 

[jho]

it's all about championships to me. i'd take 2 with 8 years of missing the playoffs.

You would make the perfect NY Giants fan

 

[playinggameswithu]

The Cubs....I despise them but here where I used to live everyone loved them. They are a terrible team and have been for century.

 

[PHX]

I beilieve teams should not start a new season with thoughts of tanking. I have no problem if during the season things don't turn out well and they tank the latter portions of season.

What I have issues with is when teams blantly tank for many seasons. I feel they owe it to their paying fans to put out at least a respectful product. Teams that plan on tanking should have reduced prices to their games but this never happens.

Loosing for too long breeds bad habits and bad minsets. Most of the teams once they start tanking can not seem to get out of rots because they do not have the culture to develope those new assets they get. Look at Browns (NFL) and Suns (NBA).

 

[klada152]

hate tanking i would change it. for example that 8,9 sead have the best odds than 7 10 ... this year half of the nba is tanking.but still you have to draft goof spurs last lottery pick was tim duncan and they are good for last 15 years

 

[nmate]

You would make the perfect NY Giants fan

lol. raiders fan. we tanked for 10 years and still suck.

 

[trippin]

The first 5 picks are very important, so yes. Think of the next superstar that will go top 5. If you are doing bad already, better tank for the future.

 

[jho]

I beilieve teams should not start a new season with thoughts of tanking. I have no problem if during the season things don't turn out well and they tank the latter portions of season.

What I have issues with is when teams blantly tank for many seasons. I feel they owe it to their paying fans to put out at least a respectful product. Teams that plan on tanking should have reduced prices to their games but this never happens.

Loosing for too long breeds bad habits and bad minsets. Most of the teams once they start tanking can not seem to get out of rots because they do not have the culture to develope those new assets they get. Look at Browns (NFL) and Suns (NBA).

Great point, but there are counterpoints too... The Astros, the 76ers, etc.

 

[DUSTIN BRYAN]

i think they should implement fines and penalties for teams that do this in all sports. no one wants to go see a game that's being thrown. it ruins it for the fans.

 

[jho]

i think they should implement fines and penalties for teams that do this in all sports. no one wants to go see a game that's being thrown. it ruins it for the fans.

Would you rather be a fan of the Detroit Pistons or the Philadelphia 76ers? Because I think any neutral observer can see that the 76ers have a much better core in order to contend for a championship, while the Pistons are stuck in perpetual playoff early round exits.


It's very hard to have a situation like the Boston Celtics, they're one of the rare situations where they were able to compete while gathering talent. For every Celtic situation, there are at least 10 situations like the Pistons.

 

[TDTODDY]

philly fan here: watched sixers tank the entire decade, with mixed results. Phillies rebuild into a contender after 2 years of hardly trying, and the eagles pug along, adding pieces every year until we won it all. It's a crap shoot. Good management and a little luck are the most important factors.

 

[reggie_g]

still it helps if you have high draft pick at least you have a better chace of improving your team so yes tanking is a good strategy to improve

 

[Jimboskie]

I'd rather have a solid squad for nine years than a one and done chump show. Or you could be a Patriots fan and have both. I'm a Panthers fan so sometimes you've got to go with what you've got...

 

[KingTurd]

I prefer the moderate tanking approach. There's the marlins version of tanking and then everybody else. I get why the teams do it but if they tank just to tank it hurts the bottom line. They are then dependent on the future working out which isnt guranteed.

 

[jho]

philly fan here: watched sixers tank the entire decade, with mixed results. Phillies rebuild into a contender after 2 years of hardly trying, and the eagles pug along, adding pieces every year until we won it all. It's a crap shoot. Good management and a little luck are the most important factors.

I think the various sports also plays a huge factor as well.


In the NFL teams increasingly go from worst in their division to division champs and playoff birth - it is possible to turn things around with just one offseason because football is such a team sport with a wide range of variables.


In MLB and especially the NBA it is not the same. Individual players are given more of an opportunity to dominate the course of a game and if you have that superstar it makes a huge difference.

 

[OzExorcist]

In the NFL teams increasingly go from worst in their division to division champs and playoff birth - it is possible to turn things around with just one offseason because football is such a team sport with a wide range of variables.

Actually the Jets-Colts pick trade yesterday make me think: I'm surprised there's not more situational tanking in the NFL. Like "It's Week 17, we've been out of the playoff race for the past month, if we just lose this game we're guaranteed the #2 pick in the draft" type tanking.


The Jets trading four picks to move up three places is just the most recent reminder that teams do place great value on being just a few picks higher in the draft. But so often you also see teams winning meaningless Week 17 games that actually hurt their draft position, so I don't know why more teams don't think about this in advance, save the rest of their draft capital and just throw the game, or send out the backups who have no chance of winning.

 

[jho]

Actually the Jets-Colts pick trade yesterday make me think: I'm surprised there's not more situational tanking in the NFL. Like "It's Week 17, we've been out of the playoff race for the past month, if we just lose this game we're guaranteed the #2 pick in the draft" type tanking.


The Jets trading four picks to move up three places is just the most recent reminder that teams do place great value on being just a few picks higher in the draft. But so often you also see teams winning meaningless Week 17 games that actually hurt their draft position, so I don't know why more teams don't think about this in advance, save the rest of their draft capital and just throw the game, or send out the backups who have no chance of winning.

I definitely agree with this. But in the NFL maybe it's more important to install a winning attitude if you already have your QB (for example, 49ers). Otherwise it's inexcusable, you have to be smart and do whatever's best for your franchise