After Heat fans spent a few days in the wake of last Thursday’s NBA trade deadline debating the merits of tanking, coach Erik Spoelstra certainly was prepared for the question before the Heat trounced the Washington Wizards on Sunday.
And he couldn’t have been more adamant in delivering an answer.
“You are free to do [whatever] you feel is the best... for your organization, and people will criticize it one way or another; people criticize us,” Spoelstra said when asked about Utah sitting two top players in the fourth quarter of a loss to Orlando on Saturday, while at least seven other teams attempt to lose enough games to increase their odds to snag a star in a June NBA Draft that’s considered one of the most talent-rich in years.
“We’re going to compete every single night. Every night! Like I told you the other day, take it or leave it, like it or not. That’s what we’re doing. Some people hate it. Some people commend it. We don’t care. We ain’t changing.”
Asked the value of doing it the Heat way — and not trying to miss the playoffs to increase its odds of landing a high draft pick — Spoelstra conceded, “It might not even be right for me to even comment about it” before commenting anyway.
“That’s who we are,” he said. “That’s what we believe in. We’re always going into games, we’re always going into seasons to win. Obviously, this comes from my boss [Pat Riley]. This has been our culture for 30 years, and I’m a caretaker of this culture. So that ain’t going to change. It allows us to develop winning habits and accountability that people may not understand if you’re not in the building.”
The Heat’s resistance to tanking (a philosophy that extends well beyond Riley among Heat decision-makers) isn’t a result of stubbornness or pride. According to two sources, it’s the byproduct of three factors:
1). The Heat doesn’t want to rely on luck or randomness of the lottery, because it’s impossible to control. Even if the Heat opted to trade all its best players and endure lots of losing for several years, Miami would need supremely good fortune to land a top pick in any draft, and would need that particular draft to have transformational players.
With the Heat, the matter is complicated by the fact that Charlotte would get Miami’s unprotected first-round pick in 2028 if the Heat misses the playoffs in 2027. The Hornets instead get the Heat’s first-round pick in 2027 if the Heat makes the playoffs next season.
2). The Heat doesn’t want to subject its fans — or themselves — to years of prolonged losing with no guarantee that it could replenish its talent pipeline with star players.
As one involved person said, fans were miserable when Miami lost 10 in a row last season; so how would fans respond if Miami was bad for five years in a row (as Detroit was before last season) or six consecutive years, as the Spurs were before striking gold in the 2023 lottery with No. 1 overall pick Wembanyama?
3). This is the most significant factor in the Heat’s thinking: Miami has studied all the data and determined that tanking does not result in any significant increase in winning championships.
Though Oklahoma City had three sub-.500 seasons before building a championship team, the biggest catalyst for the Thunder’s success — MVP guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander — was acquired from the Paul George trade with the Clippers, not from the result of tanking.
George, who asked for a trade to his hometown Clippers, netted the Thunder an enormous package: Alexander, Danilo Gallinari, five first-round picks and two pick swaps.
The history of tanking is littered with tanks that either failed, or tanks that produced some success but not championships.
Six dismal seasons of tanking (five of them intentional) haven’t catapulted the 76ers past the second round of the playoffs.
Memphis sacrificed three seasons but never advanced past the second round with a core of Ja Morant, Desmond Bane and Jaren Jackson Jr., a troika that was broken up over the past year.
Cleveland, in its current iteration that was tweaked by last week’s James Harden/Darius Garland trade, endured three straight seasons of 19 to 22 wins and hasn’t advanced past the second round of the playoffs since.
Sacramento has one playoff appearance in 17 years.
The Washington Wizards, in the throes of another tank, haven’t won 50 games in a season since 1978-79.
Houston gave away three seasons recently (winning 17, 20 and 22 games) and is unquestionably better for it but nevertheless hasn’t won a playoff series in two full seasons since, and might not have home-court advantage this postseason.
The Spurs won between 22 and 34 six years in a row before being lucky enough to land Wembanyama, which has set them up for a decade of success.
Utah won 37, 31 and 17 the past three seasons and is limping toward the lottery again this season, albeit with a more talented roster than when it started.
The Charlotte Hornets, winners of nine in a row and finally showing signs of improvement, have had a losing record in 19 of their past 25 seasons.
Orlando had two so-far fruitless rebuilds during the past 15 years.
In the first, the Magic won between 20 and 35 games for six years in a row, then lost in the first round of the next two seasons, before trying another step back.
Then it won between 21 and 34 for three straight seasons, only to lose in the first round the next two (including last season). Like the Heat, Orlando remains in play-in position this season.
After winning between 20 and 24 games for three years in a row, the Atlanta Hawks have won only two playoff series (both during the same spring) during the past six seasons.
None of the past 18 NBA champions won a title primarily as a result of tanking. Though Cleveland tanked to increase its chance to land LeBron James first overall in the 2023 draft, the Cavaliers won their only title with The King after signing James in free agency following his four years and two championships with the Heat. So there’s an asterisk there if you’re going to attribute that title to tanking.
As noted in a story last week, 10 of the 12 teams currently holding top six seeds endured between one and six seasons of misery, and at least eightof those teams have put themselves in position to win because of players obtained by that level of losing.
But aside from OKC, which benefitted primarily from the Gilgeous-Alexander trade and otherwise by tanking, none others of those eight — Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Toronto, San Antonio, Houston and Minnesota — have made the NBA Finals after intentionally taking a step back. Of those seven, only the Timberwolves have made the conference finals, losing twice. (The stories of the other teams must still play out, with the Spurs and others certainly capable of title runs.)
If the goal with tanking is to win a title, there’s not a lot of history of that during the past 20 years, with one glaring exception that resulted from fortuitous fortune:
The Spurs benefitted from tanking a single season and landing Tim Duncan in a draft during a season (1996-97) that David Robinson was injured early on. San Antonio won five titles as a result. But they’re the exception; they’ve had incredible lottery luck with Duncan and Wembanyama.
Otherwise, tanking generally doesn’t result in June parades. And that’s a major reason why there won’t be any tanks rumbling down the side streets of Kaseya Center under this Heat ownership and management.