I’ve been seeing a lot of pro and anti tanking comments in this sub so I wanted to consolidate everything into one space so we can all hash it out. I see the argument on both sides and in the end it seems like it really comes down to the intangible stuff. My understanding is the following:

Pro-Tanking:

Gives a higher draft pick which results in a better prospect in the draft. No guarantee of any means of making the team better long term (teams miss on draft picks all the time), but theoretically gives the team a better chance in the future if a pick pans out. Essentially, more losses now for more wins later. People in this camp would rather have a dramatic move/sacrifice a season in order to shake things up and get out of the cycle of mediocrity.

Anti-Tanking:

Tanking kills team morale and a top pick does not automatically mean future success (again teams miss on picks constantly). The goal here would be to have more faith in our guys and develop them by building a winning culture with what we have. People on this side want to take the slower approach and build something even if it means staying middle of the pack for a long time.

I think people need to look more at past examples of top picks changing teams versus homegrown developed teams and their success rates rather than throwing out random draft pick success and bust stories (because there are a ton either way). I’m honestly not sure what the best route to go is for the team as a whole, but want people to throw their takes in and see what resonates most w the community.