bleedspeed177 wrote:I think there is a difference between tanking and developing players. I am for the development of our young core.
Young players traditionally don't contribute much to winning efforts so developing is to a degree tanking. If you can go .500 with your regular players, but choose to play younger players who can get you a .300-.400 winning percentage then you are tanking. You can title it developing or tanking. They both result in losing games you could potentially win if you actually try.
I don't think it is that clear. Tanking is parking Martin on the bench in street clothes the rest of the year. I don't think you can consider limiting him to 30 minutes so LaVine sees more time next to Rubio tanking.
Is Martin a better player than Lavine? Then if you limit the better players minutes for a worse player for the sake of "development" time, how is that not tanking in some form? That's actively playing a worse player more time for the future. That's tanking. You can try to make tanking sound better by calling it something else, but don't act like it's not a tanking move to play worse players more minutes for the future when you know it gives us a worse chance of winning now.
The difference is development is about improving current player for the future and tanking is directly linked to draft position,
Limiting Pek's or Martin's minutes or not having them play back to backs could be considered a long-term strategy. Since both a injury prone you are looking at limiting chance of injury and also trying to lower the effects of future absence by having a replacement strategy. Spurs do a ton of this and it is not tanking. It might cost you a few games, but it is a longer play strategy.
I have no problem playing Pek a lot of minutes. We need to know what is and is not possible for managing his ankle. If he can't play big minutes now, then Flip has to assume it will be a problem next year as well and plan accordingly.
zigzag22 wrote:Current standings have us at 18.5 games back of the 8-seed with 24 games left. Barring a miracle (sarcastic font), it would be nice if the President of Basketball Ops consulted with the Coach and decided to decrease the minutes of the important players (Martin, Rubio, Pek, Wiggins) and dial up the minutes for the guys who NEED the development (Lavine, Dieng, Payne).
You know, plan for the long-term of the franchise rather than milk a win or two in March. As the last place team in the West.
That's the problem when your coach is the President of Basketball Operation. The coach is always focused on the next game, the President has to look at the big picture. That's why trading Martin, who is a very good player, made sense. It's about building this team for the future, which is very bright with a superstar in the making in Wiggins.
To be fair... the Wolves just had back-to-back huge crowds. They've sold the idea to the fans that the Garnett trade wasn't window dressing... that they are going to be better for it.
So, the first thing to reward the 19,000 fans who paid for tickets is to do the complete opposite on the court while in the midst of a competitive game they could win?
There will be MANY chances for subtle tanking from here on out. Garnett will play sparingly if at all in road games for example. I'm actually thankful that the team isn't blatantly tanking while the goodwill from the Garnett trade is still in the air. Then again, I still have Mark Madsen clanging three pointers nightmares in my head.
