So it only works if the team drafts a player who leads them to a championship? Come on. Cleveland and Denver were in a tank-off in 03 to get Lebron, and I would argue that tanking ‘worked’ for both teams since they both came out of the draft with marketable all-stars (though it certainly worked better for Cleveland). Hell, Miami even tanked that year, and their consolation prize was Wade.

Spurs had it work twice — they were accused of tanking prior to the 87 draft when everyone knew Robinson would be legit. I would say it worked for them. Even the 94 Pistons made moves that certainly made them worse from a talent standpoint and helped them bottom out. They didn’t win the lottery, but got Grant Hill for their efforts.

It doesn’t always work because not every draft has a player that is worth tanking for. If tanking gets you a better shot at Lebron James, it’s very enticing to try. If it gets you a better shot at drafting Kenyon Martin, it’s probably not worth it. This draft, though, with a potential once in a lifetime big man? Yeah, I don’t like tanking, but I can’t fault teams that are desperately trying to get Davis. He’s a franchise altering talent.

But as you say, there is currently nothing to prevent teams from doing it. And especially in a draft like this year’s, when there is a player that there is a near consensus from stat-heads and ‘my eyes are better than your lame stats’ purists alike that he’ll be a game-changing talent, the league’s dregs are going to use every competitive advantage they can to get a shot at that player. I don’t like it, but I don’t have to like it. It happens, it has helped a handful of teams over the years land franchise-altering talents and the rules don’t prohibit it.

“For one thing, other teams deserve the games they are not involved in to be honest contests”

Well, they are ‘honest’ contests. Most of the time, even bad teams play pretty hard. Hell, I could make a case that Charlotte, one of the worst assemblages of talent in league history, plays harder than quite a few teams in the league. In that sense, they are honest contests. It’s not as if teams direct their players to go out and not try hard. Front offices and coaches just stack the deck by assembling bad players on a roster. It’s still nothing I’d be proud of, but I think the distinction is important. People hear ‘tanking’ and they assume it means guys give up or don’t try hard. In fact, D-League talents, young players fighting for spots, guys on 10-day contracts, etc. probably play harder than a lot of veteran players on better teams who are locked into long-term deals.

“fans deserve to see the best players available when they buy their tickets.”

I don’t disagree. But, by and large, the one thing that gets fans to games is winning. The Pistons were a bad team that didn’t tank this season, and their attendance was terrible. Charlotte, meanwhile, was a bad team that did tank and their attendance is horrible.

The point is, winning a little bit isn’t going to draw fans, so I honestly don’t think teams care one bit about that argument when they make a decision to bottom out and get worse. If they keep limited veteran guys and stay average or slightly below, they won’t have great attendance. If they bottom out, win the lottery and get an impact star like Davis, suddenly they’re competing for a playoff spot (and that’s not hyperbole … Larry Brown said today that he thinks any team that gets Davis will be a 50 win team, including Charlotte … not sure I agree, but they hype and the desire to get him is legit). I think that’s a risk that teams will almost always take.

I mean, it’s a given that a lot of his moves have failed and that he’s a major reason the Pistons are where they are. But realistically, what can he do publicly? He can’t trash underperforming players whose value is already limited or non-existent as it is. It probably wouldn’t be wise for him, working for a new boss and probably wanting to retain his job, to publicly say, “Yeah, sorry everyone, I mistakenly handed out about $100 million in contracts to players who severely underperformed, I hired unqualified coaches and I gave away a couple cheap young players who turned out to be pretty good for little return.” When he has a prospect he probably reached for in the draft like Daye still on his roster, who incidentally has major confidence issues, should he really say, “You know, on second thought I should have taken Ty Lawson?”

I mean, I guess it’s possible that Dumars thinks all of those moves were rock solid behind the scenes and he blames other factors for why they all went so wrong. I just really doubt it, and I don’t quite get why some people seem to think the public statements he (or any GM, really) makes are an accurate reflection or evaluation of what he truly feels about his body of work.

Sure, as a fan, it would be great to see Dumars re-enact this Larry David scene and admit that he veered pretty far off the tracks. But appeasing the fans with an honest apology is not a good enough reason to trash guys who are still on your roster and who, theoretically, you’d probably like to entice another team into trading for.

The Spurs and Celtics the year of the Duncan draft are a pretty good example. Both clearly tanked (though the Spurs’ decision to do it was made easier by Robinson’s injury). But had San Antonio not won the lottery, they were still going to be a good team with Robinson returning to health, a high draft pick even if it wasn’t the guy they wanted and, if I remember correctly, a pretty good salary picture/flexibility.

Boston, on the other hand, was a lousy team with no real established players who banked on getting Duncan with one of their two lottery picks. When it didn’t happen for them, they were screwed. Although they didn’t directly try to sell their fans that all the losing was OK b/c it would result in Duncan, it was clearly implied. Then, they took a player in Billups they didn’t love, weren’t going to be patient enough for him to develop and gave up on him like halfway through his rookie year. That, to me, is ‘losing culture.’ Where, for example, you tank for the sake of tanking, but don’t have other strategies in place to recover if your tank doesn’t work out as you predicted. You see a handful of teams like that every decade, ones that constantly end up in the lottery because their strategy starts and ends at get lucky in the lottery.

Sure, the Spurs were lucky to land Duncan, but they were going to be OK even if they didn’t because they already had an established player and they had smart personnel people in place who would’ve found talent elsewhere. Maybe they wouldn’t have become one of the league’s flagship franchises, but they would’ve still had some sustained success over the next four or five seasons or so.

I don’t think any team loves the idea of tanking, and there is plenty of room for debate about how often it actually works, but to act like teams don’t willingly do it? I think that was a pretty naive comment from Mr. JJ.