Do you David Stern should establish a law against tanking?

Ala lost draft picks and heavy fines?

If a playoff team rests its stars, it is "resting" but if a lottery team rests is stars, its called "tanking."

Quote:

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different," Gomes said. "I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2007041302

Cmon David Stern... ruin the Celtics!

If Tyrus Thomas was fined by making his comment "I am only participating in the dunk contest because of the money" then I think Gomes should be fined as well.

Tanking is not a good thing of the Nba. This is a professional league and players are being paid to go out there and play.

They should, after this year that is. Once the Bucks tank there way to a top 2 pick and get either Durant or Oden, then it should be considered and implemented.

Tanking is not a good thing of the Nba. This is a professional league and players are being paid to go out there and play.

I don't disagree but if that is your stance, why are you advocating the Lakers drop their final two games to position themselves for a lottery pick in another thread?

Tanking games is ugly but at the same time if a team's season has gone down the tubes and they want to phone it in then that's their decision. If the decision is made to sit players who are banged up when the season has become a lost cause the NBA can't really force them to play. You can't really penalise a team for not giving their best effort, unless the issue of gamefixing comes up and then it's a whole other matter. Ultimately the team with the worst record is only guaranteed the best odds of getting the number one pick so it's still left up to chance.

I'm not a Celtics fan but I'm still not keen to see the NBA "ruin" the most storied franchise in history and a team that has meant so much to the league, particularly after one of the most difficult years in team history. I do agree that Gomes' remark should probably draw a fine since it's one thing to call it a season before the final game and another altogether to come out and essentially say "Yes, we're tanking." But stripping them of draft picks? No, I don't think so.

Even if measures are to be taken against tanking teams, they should come into effect next year. Otherwise, the NBA is basically making up rules as they go along without giving fair warning to teams and players.

Also, since you brought it up...couldn't one criticise playoff teams who shut it down for the final couple of games? Great teams of the past like the Bulls of the 90s and the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s competed hard from Game 1 to Game 82, regardless of whatever they might have clinched. By sitting out they're not exactly doing what they're paid to do either. They are however protecting their investments in games that will have little effect on the final outcome of the season, which is what lottery bound teams who are tanking are doing as well.

Tanking is not a good thing of the Nba. This is a professional league and players are being paid to go out there and play.

What about the young players who need to develop? You have nothing else to lose (or win), why don't you start thinking about next season?

Great teams of the past like the Bulls of the 90s and the Lakers and Celtics of the 80s competed hard from Game 1 to Game 82, regardless of whatever they might have clinched.

I wouldn't go that far. Those teams had a couple years in which they did, but most of the time great teams have ratcheted it down once they had homecourt throughout the playoffs. Those '92 Bulls would've gotten 70 but Phil shut them down early for the playoffs. The '67 Sixers, '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers all did that too.

Anyway, I don't know how you can really PROVE a team is tanking unless they say things like Gomes. How about a team like the Hawks the last few years? They've been abhorrent. What's the difference between being terrible and tanking? Or knowing your season is over, so playing the young guys?

Why does anyone care if an already lousy team lets up to improve it's draft position? Is it so terrible to see the Celtics give up and win 25 games, instead of them working hard and winning 30?

Either unweight the lottery, or let them "tank" the last third of the season away.

Teams should be able to tank if they want. The fans will forget about it come Draft time and if they really suck enough to need to tank, playing their young guys and lowering their chances of winning games late in the season doesn't really matter because they probably wouldn't win those games anyway. I see nothing wrong with it. If your not making the playoffs, a high draft pick is the next best thing. Staying competitive isn't going to help in any way.

Detroit is beginning to rest their starters. They're tanking!

i said it in another thread and i say it here, who cares if a team tanks? the celtics tanked once before to try and win duncan and that failed big time, ruined the team for years to come, hell they are still ruined. tanking is not a guarenteed thing by any means. could turn out that the griz gets the 4th pick and the celts get the 5th pick. then since they tanked no one will be willing to sign with them and pierce will definetly demand a trade and the celtics will suck for another 5-6 years to come. i think the nba does well enough with the lottery the way it is to where tanking is not a good idea as is might fail. then again it could land you a future hall of famer.

Tanking is not a good thing of the Nba.

Thats why they made the draft lottery.

But really, the NBA can't do a thing about it. If Boston tanks and gets Oden, good for them. If they get the 5th pick, it will hurt them, which is why tanking is discouraged, but can't be eliminated.

Thats why they made the draft lottery.

Yeah, and then they changed it to a weighted lottery because it was "unfair" to the bad teams.

Tanking only really hurts the organisation. The players out there on the court are still playing hard. They are auditioning for future contracts, and some are getting their opportunity to prove that they belong in the league.

I can see the merits of both sides of the arguments....I don't think any coach would knowingly throw a game, as it could end up costing him his job....I do think management gets in a coach's ear & says, "we can't make the playoffs, give the young players some burn so we will better for next year"....I don't consider that tanking....you're not deliberately throwing a game to increase your chances of more lottery balls, but you are decreasing your likelihood of winning....if I was a fan of a team that had had a crappy year through injuries and whatnot & they weren't going to make the playoffs, I would want them to play the young guys (i.e. the David Lee's, Monta Ellis' of the world when they were rookies) & see what they can do, give them experience & so on....as a fan, I'd still want these young guys playing at 110% & the coach still really coaching, but rest some of the stars, decrease their likelihood of injury....

because when you think about it, what is the difference between winning 20 games & 27 games?!? not much really, both teams still stink & didn't get close to playoffs....

although I guess it isn't good for organisations....it would be nice to see them bring back a lottery that isn't weighted so much towards bottom teams so there is less incentive to throw games....

hmmm, tough call I guess, I contradicted myself at the end there, but it just shows you that it is not a black & white argument at all....

It's impossible to say if a team is tanking purposely or not. You can't go out & fine the Knicks & Hawks, because they don't have draft picks, but looking at this performance this year if you didn't know it, you would say they're tanking.

Such a rule would be close to impossible to enforce fairly. Some teams just don't have it together.