In the forums, Roy Hobbs dug up this bit of fun.
Peter May - pro-tanking in 2006:
There should be little to no doubt in the minds of real Celtics fans as to what they want to see in the final 23 games: hard-fought L's.
You keep Pierce, LaFrentz, and Szczerbiak out there too long, you might actually win more than you lose. That might feel good now and, undoubtedly, Doc Rivers, as a coach, would like the W's on his résumé. But Ainge is a big-picture guy and really isn't results-oriented (nor should he be at this point).
Peter May - anti-tanking in 2007:
Las Vegas, site of the NBA All-Star festivities, is a city that owes its very existence to a very simple premise: People lose more than they win.
With that apparent truism as a backdrop, it is revealing and interesting to hear how the Celtics are better off by losing, losing, and losing some more over the final 31 games because it means they get the best chance at the No. 1 pick in the 2007 draft.
Such thinking flies in the face of reality, specifically that Doc Rivers is not going to try to lose games, that having the worst record only means that you have a 75 percent chance of not getting the first pick, and that the presumptive top two picks for whom everyone is lusting are college freshmen who may not even come out.
Yeah, that's worth losing the rest of the way.
Roy Hobbs emailed Peter about it and got this response:
Hi Roy. Enjoyed you in The Natural.
I would submit that the two are not contradictory. What I wrote today was in reaction to all the people who seem to think that if the Celtics do tank, they are automatically assured of getting the top pick. And what I wrote last time was what I perceived Celtics fans as really wanting (and probably what they want now.)
You be the judge.