What's new
By:
Filters

David Locke - Utah Jazz are NOT tanking

We might do some mini tanking at the very end of the season.provided we are losing against more bottom dwellers like SASconsistently from here on out. even while we are trying to win.
But if we keep winning, there is no way in hell we are tanking the play in game for example, not just for a slim to none chance at a top 4 pick.
Trading 3 rotation players although tank written all over it, only proved false as we still have the best players on the roster and clearly the one's that really made the engine run anyway.
 
HermanG said:
Stop exaggarating. No one is saying you have to do everything to lose. Oh except the official definitions found in the interwebs.

This is the generally used definition:
Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams.

Are we a non-competitive team? Are we even a losing team?

I have asked this twice now. Are there any other moves than win now or tanking in your terminology?
Click to expand...
Well i mean even by the definition you posted a winning and competitive team can still be a tanking team. Say a team intentionally fields a non competitive team to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams but then the team they fielded is better than expected and they win and are competitive.

If a team (lets say the lakers this year) field what they think is a championship level team but then suck really bad does that mean they are tanking?

I tend to look at the moves the front office makes and interpret those moves. If I see a team that was in the playoffs year after and even had the best record in the league and 3 all stars and 6 man of the year and DPOY and I see that team trade away literally every starter from that team for a bunch of young dudes who weren't very good on the teams they came from and picks then that is a team intending to intentionally field a non competitive team. In this instance some of the pieces that came back were better than expected and the team had some luck winning close games and playing teams missing starters and stars and they won more than expected and the tank got destroyed by the most improved player in the league.
 
You cant just say "the team is winning so they aren't tanking" or "the team is losing so they are tanking"
For me you have to look at the moves made at the time that they are made and use your judgement. When we made the trades we made in the summer almost everyone said we were tanking. Vegas definitely did. Im not even going to discuss the trade deadline trade cause that was obviously a tank trade.
 
sip said:
Trading 3 rotation guys for nothing back is about as clear of a tank move as you will ever see. Unfortunately we have had a soft schedule since the trade and Lauri has just been so damn good and every game we seem to have one or two other guys really step up.
Click to expand...
You do also understand that Beasley and Conley combined for 21 shots per game on worse accuracy than anyone of Lauri, Sexton, KO, Ochai and Clarkson?

Both were shooting pretty much the same around 40/36/80. Only one shooting worse from 3 is Clarkson at 35 (others 39+) and Clarkson is also lowest in FG% at 45 from current starters but still better than Conley and Beasley.

Not saying the trade didnt make us worse since it gutted our bench... but we didnt give away guys from the top end.
 
HermanG said:
Stop exaggarating. No one is saying you have to do everything to lose. Oh except the official definitions found in the interwebs.

This is the generally used definition:
Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams.

Are we a non-competitive team? Are we even a losing team?

I have asked this twice now. Are there any other moves than win now or tanking in your terminology?
Click to expand...
I can exaggerate all I want... its fun.

We lost to a team last night that had lost 16 in a row... are they tanking or are they "competitive"? What about Houston and Detroit... are they tanking or rebuilding?

Of course bruh... there are a **** ton of moves... I don't know where you are coming up with that part of the argument. It does not matter. When you are firmly in the middle of the NBA though... generally when you make trades it has the purpose of helping you rise above the fray or get assets for future years. When you gather assets for future years by yielding talent it will logically hurt your opportunity to continue winning at the rate you currently established.

We will end with a losing record this year. We could have easily had a winning record and made not just the play in but top 6. Call that whatever you would like.
 
HermanG said:
You do also understand that Beasley and Conley combined for 21 shots per game on worse accuracy than anyone of Lauri, Sexton, KO, Ochai and Clarkson?

Both were shooting pretty much the same around 40/36/80. Only one shooting worse from 3 is Clarkson at 35 (others 39+) and Clarkson is also lowest in FG% at 45 from current starters but still better than Conley and Beasley.

Not saying the trade didnt make us worse since it gutted our bench... but we didnt give away guys from the top end.
Click to expand...
Oh dear Lord... really. Yeah we want to keep our TOP guys... we replaced Beasley and Conley with THT/Ochai/Fontechio... is that a downgrade or nah. What about Vando for more Gay and JTA?

Again this is the "we didn't sell EVERYTHING so can't be tanking". We sold off 3 rotation players, 1 more that would have been prominently placed in the rotation after the trade, and a couple seconds for a protected 1st (and cap space this offseason).
 
fishonjazz said:
Well i mean even by the definition you posted a winning and competitive team can still be a tanking team. Say a team intentionally fields a non competitive team to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams but then the team they fielded is better than expected and they win and are competitive.

If a team (lets say the lakers this year) field what they think is a championship level team but then suck really bad does that mean they are tanking?

I tend to look at the moves the front office makes and interpret those moves. If I see a team that was in the playoffs year after and even had the best record in the league and 3 all stars and 6 man of the year and DPOY and I see that team trade away literally every starter from that team for a bunch of young dudes who weren't very good on the teams they came from and picks then that is a team intending to intentionally field a non competitive team. In this instance some of the pieces that came back were better than expected and the team had some luck winning close games and playing teams missing starters and stars and they won more than expected and the tank got destroyed by the most improved player in the league.
Click to expand...
You can also replace the word non-competitive with less-competitive to be more accurate. We have certainly intentionally made moves that make the team less competitive.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Oh dear Lord... really. Yeah we want to keep our TOP guys... we replaced Beasley and Conley with THT/Ochai/Fontechio... is that a downgrade or nah. What about Vando for more Gay and JTA?

Again this is the "we didn't sell EVERYTHING so can't be tanking". We sold off 3 rotation players, 1 more that would have been prominently placed in the rotation after the trade, and a couple seconds for a protected 1st (and cap space this offseason).
Click to expand...
And the thing about that trade is we could have traded all those dudes in the offseason if we really wanted the cap space. Probably could have got more for them too. But if we wait till the off season to make that trade then our pick this year ends up worse.
 
fishonjazz said:
Well i mean even by the definition you posted a winning and competitive team can still be a tanking team. Say a team intentionally fields a non competitive team to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams but then the team they fielded is better than expected and they win and are competitive.

If a team (lets say the lakers this year) field what they think is a championship level team but then suck really bad does that mean they are tanking?

I tend to look at the moves the front office makes and interpret those moves. If I see a team that was in the playoffs year after and even had the best record in the league and 3 all stars and 6 man of the year and DPOY and I see that team trade away literally every starter from that team for a bunch of young dudes who weren't very good on the teams they came from and picks then that is a team intending to intentionally field a non competitive team. In this instance some of the pieces that came back were better than expected and the team had some luck winning close games and playing teams missing starters and stars and they won more than expected and the tank got destroyed by the most improved player in the league.
Click to expand...
You ignored the key word "intentionally" in your early example.

Also Lauri didnt go off in our early start. He went off in late December. We had Sexton (24 PPG in 20-21) and Beasley (20 PPG in 19-20 and 20-21) IN OUR BENCH to start the season.

How is that a tanking team? We had the best bench in the league... probably on paper as well.

Everyone was fooled by the lack of household names... but Danny hoarded good players who werent in key roles hoping to find diamonds in the rough. Thats why he wanted Quickley as well.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
By the definition some give there have literally been 0 tanking teams ever. Or maybe the Sixers... but even the Sixers the coaches and players were trying to win.

To be a tanking team you must do literally everything to lose. You must trade every good player. You must start from day 1 of the preseason. You must also state your only goal is to lose games... you can not say that you are doing it to develop young players... then it is a rebuild. The coach must hit on all the players girlfriends and spouses to ensure they hate him. You must keep the home locker room at 77 degrees or higher else the players will be too comfortable. Also this tank must last at least two decades AT LEAST.
Click to expand...
Hahaha.. Wish I could rep.

@Handlogten's Heros killing it in this thread.
 
I have no idea whether or not we're tanking. The players are definitely trying to win, and I think Hardy is too for the most part. At the same time, I definitely think that the trade the front office made at the deadline was made with hopes that it would lead to more losses the rest of the season.

what else is Locke going to say? Do announcers for the Spurs and Rockets come out and say "Hey guys, we're tanking"?
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Oh dear Lord... really. Yeah we want to keep our TOP guys... we replaced Beasley and Conley with THT/Ochai/Fontechio... is that a downgrade or nah. What about Vando for more Gay and JTA?

Again this is the "we didn't sell EVERYTHING so can't be tanking". We sold off 3 rotation players, 1 more that would have been prominently placed in the rotation after the trade, and a couple seconds for a protected 1st (and cap space this offseason).
Click to expand...
You start flaming again... Stop with the nonsense of having to trade everything.

Thoae guys were traded and:
Kessler minutes increased by 5.1 per game since Vando was traded (25.7 from Jan 11 to Feb 8.. 30.8 since)
Lauri shots per game up by 4.6 (16.1 to 20.7)
Ochai minutes up by 13 per game, FGA up by 3.4

Not all that obvious those changes are bad for us.... our bench also did fine until we got few injuries and had to play Juzang et al.

Losing was not a priority, and you just cannot see it for whatever reason.
 
I'm not gonna die on the "We're not tanking" hill. There's been enough very perplexing decisions in the 2nd half of the season to put us into a very gray area IMO. I still don't really know what to think. Changes from day to day. The Spurs game sure did look like Hardy wasn't trying to win.

It's just... crazy. It's way too late to tank, and it's insane to try to tank when you have a healthy All Star on the roster, playing major minutes. A dude you absolutely need to resign in the near future, no less.
 
HermanG said:
Stop exaggarating. No one is saying you have to do everything to lose. Oh except the official definitions found in the interwebs.

This is the generally used definition:
Tanking in sports refers to the practice of intentionally fielding non-competitive teams to take advantage of league rules that benefit losing teams.

Are we a non-competitive team? Are we even a losing team?

I have asked this twice now. Are there any other moves than win now or tanking in your terminology?
Click to expand...
Explain to me how yanking out 3 starters from the team approaching the playoff race for effectively a future protected draft pick doesn’t constitute “intentionally fielding non-competitive team”?

You don’t do that if you want to make the playoffs.. and in fact no teams wanting to make the playoffs have done that or would even consider doing that. Unless they’re tanking.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Explain to me how yanking out 3 starters from the team approaching the playoff race for effectively a future protected draft pick doesn’t constitute “intentionally fielding non-competitive team”?

You don’t do that if you want to make the playoffs.. and in fact no teams wanting to make the playoffs have done that or would even consider doing that. Unless they’re tanking.
Click to expand...
Because our team is competitive. 4-3 since dealine.
 
lol. locke. what a *******. it's easy to spin - you can just say they are giving 100% to win. but from the organization standpoint you don't "see what you have" with Juzang, a UFA, if you're going all in for a playoff spot. and that's if you can spin trading four important rotation pieces Conley, Vando, Beasley and NAW for zero in return. people are stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top