News came out recently that an NBA general manager easily convinced his entire organization to tank—to lose intentionally.
“The ownership didn’t want to tread water any more than I did,” said the anonymous GM in an interview with ESPN. “They’d rather go down to the bottom with the hope of coming up, so they signed off on it. It wasn’t a fight at all. In a different season, it might not make sense, but this draft certainly makes it more appealing.”
The organization developed a three-pronged strategy to tank effectively: play young players, sit starters and trade stars. It will result in more losses, bringing the team closer to a high draft pick, while also developing the youth.
The sporting world took offense to these comments. Bleacher Report offered “Best Potential Solutions to Fix the NBA’s Tanking Problem” while Sports Grid tried to determine the tanking culprit. Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Bucks organization condemned this strategy.
“Why should I come to the games if you’re telling me you’re not trying to win?” asked Assistant GM David Morway.
Bucks GM John Hammond argues that teams should seek complementary pieces in the draft and in trades as the Bucks do.
“Guys are going to say ‘I want to be a part of this because they’re winning,’” Hammond said of the Bucks’ tactics.
Such nobility is commendable, but the Bucks have not reached the second round of the playoffs since 2001. Something is not working.
According to Michael Jordan, there are other holes in the logic of tanking.
“It’s not guaranteed that [the player] you are going to get is going to be that star anyway,” he told the Associated Press. Jordan speaks from personal experience. His ascent to greatness must have been littered with friends and teammates who did not reach their potential. Moreover, the Bobcats have seen many of their own lottery picks become mediocre players, at best.
The criticisms of this anonymous general manager come from a place of good intentions. People want to preserve the sanctity of sports. Fans, players and entire organizations—from the security guards to the owners in the luxurious boxes—spend their evenings in basketball arenas to enjoy the competition. The organizations’ decision to undermine this competition robs fans and players of an exciting atmosphere.
The critics’ perspective is certainly credible. In fact, statistics support the anti-tanking rhetoric. Of the 29 drafts in the current weighted lottery format, the team with the worst record has received the first pick only four times. To harp on Jordan’s point, there have been dozens of busts. Guys like Rodney White, Jonathan Bender, Johnny Flynn, Kwame Brown, Darko Milicic, and my personal favorite, Adam Morrison, notoriously never panned out. They have become no-names and were, in retrospect, clearly undeserving of lottery selections.
In the best-case scenario, a tanking team drafts a once-in-a-generation talent.
Experts believe that such an individual may lie in the upcoming NBA Draft. Andrew Wiggins, currently a freshman at Kansas, is often compared to LeBron James for his potential to dominate a generation of athletes.
For the anonymous general manager tired of leading his team into perpetual mediocrity with a middle-of-the-road pick, Wiggins provides hope. Instead of finding mediocre complements to an above-average team (à la the Bucks), the organization can draft a rare talent. Wiggins could have a stronghold on the league for nearly a decade while current superstars fade and new rivals are unable to match up. In a sport with only 10 players on the hardwood at a time, one superstar can determine the fate of the game.
For losing teams in big markets, such as the Boston Celtics, there is no alterative option to tanking. Fans demand success of the highest order. In the highly competitive atmosphere of the NBA, losing is often, ironically, the quickest route to wins. Because decisions are made by organizations, tanking will become, or perhaps, stay the norm. But the NBA chose the name “lottery” for a reason. Tanking is merely a strategy, not a guarantee.