Hey brehs, I've never gotten a full understanding of which NBA teams should definitely have been tanking this year.
I know the Knicks, 76ers, Wolves, but who else should have been tanking from game 1 for this draft class?
Suns, Kings, Pelicans, Lakers and Mavs.
The Wolves don't need to tank, they have talent already and making the playoffs wouldn't be a bad thing for them. You have to look at the age of a team, and then their best players and go from there.
After Jabari got hurt, it would be in the Bucks best interest to miss the playoffs and try to get Monk or Ntilikina.
This right here is a pretty good answer.
I think you could have pretty easily added the Magic to that list, along with of course, the knicks -- I hesitate to put the Nuggets in here, because they very well may make the playoffs -- but man, if they had a more dynamic point guard, that team would be sneaky dangerous.
Also,
@DPresidential - I saw that you added a "for this draft class" modifier, and don't know if it was on purpose, or a throwaway.
I'm of the belief that when you stink, you should draft talent first, fit second. Find yourself a coach that can come up with a way to maximize those talents. But clearly this draft is PG heavy. PG Saturated at the top, even. But given the propensity for teams to run two pgs out there, and go small... and combine that with the fact that, short of a LeBron/Wade/Duncan level talent, you're not usually one draft pick away from rising to championship contender -- I would say most teams could really use a shot at Ball/Fultz/Jackson/etc.
I also think that we should be realistic about what we mean when we say tank -- most teams are not gonna bench their starters to lose 82 games, right? Nor should they. (Maybe your last 30 games, but that's another conversation)
But these are teams that should probably be thinking in terms of 3-5+ years, rather than year-to-year. Brooklyn is another team in the dumpster, but they don't have picks, and the team is so bad, that
trying to win is almost immaterial.
I think you can pick apart more than half the teams in the league, and argue about whether they'd be better off losing, than winning. But the factors change from team to team: Youth, talent core, contracts, attractive assets, realistic playoff chances, etc -- all have to be considered.
In THIS thread, people throw around the term 'treadmill' team, as a defense mechanism, because the knicks fukking stink, and it is the kind of insult posters use against Hawks fans, etc -- to make themselves feel better about the fact that our team is trash, and their team is a playoff team.
I am a believer in breaking up a competitive treadmill team, when it becomes obvious after a few seasons that you have hit your ceiling. But there's no shame in being the 4th-5th-6th best team in a conference for a few years, after all -- only 1 team wins the chip each year. 2 play in the finals. Maybe 3-4 have a realistic shot at a title.
And I think sometimes, blowing it up means you stink, and have to accept a worse record, and a better pick, shave some payroll, and reset. And others, it means you drop from a contender, to a middling team, as assets gain value (young players improving, or players/picks/contracts becoming better trade chips).