PDA

View Full Version : NBA Draft Lottery is flat out ruining the sport



Pages : [1] 2

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 04:50 AM
I'm sorry but I just have to comment on this. I am hearing the same insanity / inanity everyday about the NBA and I just can't take it anymore I have to say something.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that no team will actually ADMIT that they are tanking... which in a way is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, the 76'rs are NOT tanking, they are just sucking as they have a majority of years in their history. Chances are you could change the incentives tomorrow, flip the lottery upside down so that the best record gets the first pick, and the 76'rs would still suck just about as bad. I mean it's cute that the ESPN media guys kind of try to smooth things over for them, you know *wink wink* of course they're tanking, but if you ask me they would still finish well into the lottery no matter how hard they tried. PERIOD.

But, leaving that aside, I've just got to point out that NBA tanking is flat out RUINING the sport. Let's do some math: for every team that is in fact "tanking", i.e. purposefully losing games and/or fielding an uncompetitive team in order to accumulate losses so they can get a higher draft pick, 3% of your total regular season games for the whole league become irrelevant non-sporting events, lacking any real sporting or competitive value. So, for every three teams you have tanking, then disregarding the games that overlap when they play each other (creating an absurd Globetrotters tank vs tank situation) you are losing almost 10% of your ENTIRE LEAGUE SEASON, your entire annual "crop" or "product," to total crap nonsense.

Of course it is hugely ugly and disrespectful to the sport that a team like the 76'rs is willing to flush an entire season (or two, or three, or four) just to get a "higher draft pick," but apparently some of these GMs and owners are perfectly willing to do that.

Heck, the 76'rs even tanked, got the 2nd overall pick MKG, and then were looking to dump him in another stupid trade. In other words, they flushed an ENTIRE season to get a prospect, then are willing to just dump that prospect for more or less nothing.

And now even the Magic Johnson's of the world are talking about tanking, advocating for the Lakers--historically the league's strongest franchise--to outright tank to try and get the worst record in the league.

What.A.Joke.

AND, let's not forget that the league is making strong overtures to the U.S. courts and the gambling world, to legalize sports betting on the NBA. All this WHILE it is acknowledged more and more openly that a number of teams are outright tanking (i.e. "throwing" games and seasons). See also: Chicago Black Sox.

So, maybe you might say "Sssmush, only 6 to 8 teams are outright tanking, and those are lottery teams anyway. So that means that only 20% or so of the NBA's games in a given season are total meaningless crap, where malingering overpaid underachievers go out and play uncoached street ball and then intentionally dribble it off their foot in order to intentionally lose games and get a pat on the back from their coach and GM. 20% of the NBA's product being a total joke is not actually that bad, and besides we can't expect every player to play good and hard every night, there has to be an escape valve for bad teams and tanking is it."

But wait, it gets even worse: Because consider, and this ALMOST happened to OKC this year at the start of the season, but consider what happens when a smallish market team that is considered a top contender gets a couple of key injuries to its superstar players or starts off the season with a string of losses.

Right? You see it, right?

When OKC had Durant and Westbrook out and were 4-11 or 4-18 or whatever, they were probably oh-so-close to jumping on the tanking bandwagon, and if those players were out for a longer time they would certainly have started tanking.

So in other words, any promising contender or top contending team that gets off to a rough start (say 5-10 in the tough Western Conference, or 10-25) may immediately just decide that it's better to mail in the rest of the season.

THEN you've got a number of your top televised marquee games and another 1%-2% of your league games that are total worthless crap.

Again, you might say "Sssmush, the NBA is so great, with such a great product, such high tv revenues and such awesome refereeing and competitive structure that it does't really matter if 25% of our total regular season league games are thrown and/or total crap. Our product is just that strong that we don't care. And furthermore, how is a team like the 76'rs ever goiing to get better unless we give them a strong incentive to intentionally lose 100% of their games over a three year period?"

And at that point I just have to tell you you've answered your own question. The draft lottery should (MUST) be completely un-weighted, with every team having an equal random chance for the top spot. We might perhaps say that the bottom ten teams get a double chance, but that would be it. Other than that, draft order as determined by the lottery would be 100% random and could never be improved by "tanking."

NBA: Listen to me know and believe me later. Implement these (easy) rule fixes. David Silver you should publicly campaign and shame and harangue the dissenting owners. Otherwise your sport, and by extension you, are a complete joke and I myself may eventually have to give up my following of the NBA as a sport. Football has improved, so has baseball, there is MMA, there is college basketball, etc.

It is in fact very possible that NBA basketball has begun a decline into irrelevance and minor-league status, ironically led by fire-brand once glorious franchises like the 76'rs and the Celtics (with Magic Johnson trying to hop on there too). What a joke.

What a JOKE. What a joke.

Fix this.

goingfor28
12-11-2014, 04:52 AM
Yes bc handing the tanking 6ers the #1 is the way to go. If worst team was guaranteed #1 there'd be a lottttttttt more full on tanking

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 04:57 AM
Yes bc handing the tanking 6ers the #1 is the way to go. If worst team was guaranteed #1 there'd be a lottttttttt more full on tanking

No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 05:03 AM
I mean right?

How can the NBA possibly incentivize teams to lose games? ESPECIALLY when they've seen from consistent experience that teams like the 76'rs will take things to the extreme and try to lose every single game in an entire season just for a chance to get a top 3 college draft prospect?

I mean MAYBE if all the teams were trying, you could make the case for the lottery as currently set up. But with teams being so stupid about the way they value draft picks and being so openly unethical / trifling / ridiculous / unsportsmanlike / ungentlemanly / undignified / dishonorable / pathetic about the way they are handling their teams, the league has no choice but to implement a flat top to bottom lottery.

Personally, I would like to see this just so bad teams would't be able to fake it and pretend they are tanking. Yeah, you know, everybody in the NBA is a superstar. If we're not winning it's just because the refs are jobbing us or because we're tanking. What a load of crap.

goingfor28
12-11-2014, 05:04 AM
Last year's Spurs and Heat having the same odds as last year's 6ers, Bucks, Wolves, Cavs etc is ridiculous as well. Not fair at all to the non tanking teams

No clue what a correct solution would be but the NBA does need to find one

GoferKing_
12-11-2014, 05:05 AM
The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So the best teams could be even more stacked? Good luck.

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 05:05 AM
And Magic should really stop talking about the Lakers at this point. Somebody make him #1 Clippers fan or something please.

More-Than-Most
12-11-2014, 05:07 AM
I find it hilarious that people continue to throw the 76ers under the bus for doing something that teams like the thunder and so on have done countless times over and over and over again. Its the only way to get good period.... You either tank or you sit in mediocre hell for years to come... there is no middle ground with teams because of the fact there are super teams out there... No player wants to play by themselves and because of that talent goes with other talent and the middle man never has a chance in this era of basketball. The 76ers are doing nothing different from every other team that has been in the lottery draft except they are more open about it. Their players and coach are trying to win games but the Management has not given them much after constantly trying year in and year out but always coming up short because of extremely bad luck like an andrew bynum or Elton Brand... Freak injuries have kept this team down and when you are in that kind of hole with how the NBA is setup the only way to get out is to suck for years. We tried to be that team that stays competitive for years and it always equaled to 6-8 seed and a one and done where we push other teams to 7 games but always get the short end of the stick because we did not have the star power when AI left.

Tanking is the only option until they stop allowing the formation of superteams... What is more of an issue... a few teams tanking to get better or teams superstars talking while their on other teams and planning to join other teams superstars to be great or superstars deciding that they no longer like said organization and want out because they know that the organization they are apart of has little shot to win anytime soon.

This same lottery system that people sit here and are so fixated on is the same lottery system that allowed the cavs 4 straight number 1 picks even though they were never really that bad of a team while teams like the sixers who werent really trying to tank at the time were worse but lost out because of bad luck with a bad lottery system

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 05:12 AM
So the best teams could be even more stacked? Good luck.

Not necessarily, but the draft lottery is randomly determined. End of story. Otherwise you are incentivizing teams to lose.

And why should we be so quick to agree that the worst teams should get the highest picks anyway? Actually if you want to get into it the whole idea of a league "draft" is unconstitutional and anti-free-market.

But leaving that aside a flat 1-30 draft is perfectly fine. In the grand scheme of things there is not that much difference between #1 and #30, and in fact many outstanding players such as Kevin Love, Carlos Boozer, and Tony Parker were drafted in the SECOND round, long after many lottery failures. Kwahi Leonard was a low first rounder.

This year you'll very likely see several players from the bottom of the draft turn out to be more valuable than Wiggins and Exum.

But that is all besides the point. It is URGENT for the league to put an end to this tanking nonsense because their sport is becoming a huge joke right when they are on the verge of their greatest success. The draft lottery gains them NOTHING as a league. Nothing.

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 05:17 AM
I find it hilarious that people continue to throw the 76ers under the bus for doing something that teams like the thunder and so on have done countless times over and over and over again. Its the only way to get good period.... You either tank or you sit in mediocre hell for years to come... there is no middle ground with teams because of the fact there are super teams out there... No player wants to play by themselves and because of that talent goes with other talent and the middle man never has a chance in this era of basketball. The 76ers are doing nothing different from every other team that has been in the lottery draft except they are more open about it. Their players and coach are trying to win games but the Management has not given them much after constantly trying year in and year out but always coming up short because of extremely bad luck like an andrew bynum or Elton Brand... Freak injuries have kept this team down and when you are in that kind of hole with how the NBA is setup the only way to get out is to suck for years. We tried to be that team that stays competitive for years and it always equaled to 6-8 seed and a one and done where we push other teams to 7 games but always get the short end of the stick because we did not have the star power when AI left.

Tanking is the only option until they stop allowing the formation of superteams... What is more of an issue... a few teams tanking to get better or teams superstars talking while their on other teams and planning to join other teams superstars to be great or superstars deciding that they no longer like said organization and want out because they know that the organization they are apart of has little shot to win anytime soon.

This same lottery system that people sit here and are so fixated on is the same lottery system that allowed the cavs 4 straight number 1 picks even though they were never really that bad of a team while teams like the sixers who werent really trying to tank at the time were worse but lost out because of bad luck with a bad lottery system

The only way to win is to build a winning culture.

And here, let's do this test: Bring out the 76'rs GM on television, and I will ask him if the 76'rs are tanking.

WHEN he says "no, we would never tank" well then that proves that he is either an incompetent GM and the 76'rs suck so historically bad that tanking is just an excuse, OR he is a liar.

So you've got the leader of one of the NBA's flagship franchises, on whom tens of millions of dollars are wagered every year, publicly LYING about the fact that his team is purposefully throwing games.

I'm sorry, you can talk about competitiveness all you want, but I just do not see how the league can possibly tolerate this.

Take my word for it this is bad. This is historically bad for the league and for American sports in general and in fact I might say it cuts even deeper than sports.

GrumpyOldMan
12-11-2014, 05:40 AM
Instead of making it so every team in the NBA has an equal chance at winning the lottery, it would make more sense to me to have your un-weighted lottery be among all non-playoff teams. Draw the order of the draft for these teams and then give the teams that make the playoffs their order based on the current format.

Jeffy25
12-11-2014, 06:15 AM
No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

Problem with this, is what happens when a super team like the Cavs get to add a top prospect like Okafor?

Is this really better for the game?



I think the real solution is a more complete D-league and development system for players like they have in baseball and their minor leagues.

Guys don't have to go to college, and can be drafted as early as 16.

Then guys go straight to the D-league where every team has 2-4 teams playing in varying leagues.

Some guys work on development, some guys are career bench players trying to get a call up and compete against the guys developing. Teams could work on developing players for specific roles (let's say a guy is good at one aspect of the game, let's say a PF who has good post defense, but is really poor at rebounding). This is a chance to develop a second or third skill set for the kid so that maybe he can be a useful bench player for your organization.


Now teams are taking guys who are much further away from being in the NBA and ready.

No 16 year old in the country is anywhere close to being NBA ready, hell LeBron was as close as anyone and he still needed time to develop.

This would make the guys that get drafted in the lottery portion of the draft bigger wild cards. Because you really don't know how these kids are going to develop. Heck, many of them are still going to get taller.


They can finish their high school and college educations while in these instructional leagues. They get drafted and teams simply get picks based on how they finish the season. The kids are paid by the big league clubs and can be traded and released.


Nobody is going to outright tank anymore. Because the difference from the first and second pick in the next draft of 16 year olds isn't as valuable. You have to actually develop your talent now. And the teams that are better and scouting and development will do much better.

Jeffy25
12-11-2014, 06:18 AM
Instead of making it so every team in the NBA has an equal chance at winning the lottery, it would make more sense to me to have your un-weighted lottery be among all non-playoff teams. Draw the order of the draft for these teams and then give the teams that make the playoffs their order based on the current format.

So all non-playoff teams have an equal shot at 1-14 picks?

I like that idea.

jimm120
12-11-2014, 06:30 AM
The sixers strategy is to build through the draft. I'll agree to that.

But just cause you're team sucks and has a bad record doesn't mean that their tanking.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 07:02 AM
Lol 1-30 lottery is also terrible. Imagine the Cavs winning the title then being given a #1 pick. Everyone would scream rigged.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 07:06 AM
Just financially penalize teams based on their win/loss % and see how owners react to getting millions in penalties handed down to them.

Ariza's Better
12-11-2014, 07:20 AM
I'm sorry but I just have to comment on this. I am hearing the same insanity / inanity everyday about the NBA and I just can't take it anymore I have to say something.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that no team will actually ADMIT that they are tanking... which in a way is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, the 76'rs are NOT tanking, they are just sucking as they have a majority of years in their history. Chances are you could change the incentives tomorrow, flip the lottery upside down so that the best record gets the first pick, and the 76'rs would still suck just about as bad. I mean it's cute that the ESPN media guys kind of try to smooth things over for them, you know *wink wink* of course they're tanking, but if you ask me they would still finish well into the lottery no matter how hard they tried. PERIOD.

But, leaving that aside, I've just got to point out that NBA tanking is flat out RUINING the sport. Let's do some math: for every team that is in fact "tanking", i.e. purposefully losing games and/or fielding an uncompetitive team in order to accumulate losses so they can get a higher draft pick, 3% of your total regular season games for the whole league become irrelevant non-sporting events, lacking any real sporting or competitive value. So, for every three teams you have tanking, then disregarding the games that overlap when they play each other (creating an absurd Globetrotters tank vs tank situation) you are losing almost 10% of your ENTIRE LEAGUE SEASON, your entire annual "crop" or "product," to total crap nonsense.

Of course it is hugely ugly and disrespectful to the sport that a team like the 76'rs is willing to flush an entire season (or two, or three, or four) just to get a "higher draft pick," but apparently some of these GMs and owners are perfectly willing to do that.

Heck, the 76'rs even tanked, got the 2nd overall pick MKG, and then were looking to dump him in another stupid trade. In other words, they flushed an ENTIRE season to get a prospect, then are willing to just dump that prospect for more or less nothing.

And now even the Magic Johnson's of the world are talking about tanking, advocating for the Lakers--historically the league's strongest franchise--to outright tank to try and get the worst record in the league.

What.A.Joke.

AND, let's not forget that the league is making strong overtures to the U.S. courts and the gambling world, to legalize sports betting on the NBA. All this WHILE it is acknowledged more and more openly that a number of teams are outright tanking (i.e. "throwing" games and seasons). See also: Chicago Black Sox.

So, maybe you might say "Sssmush, only 6 to 8 teams are outright tanking, and those are lottery teams anyway. So that means that only 20% or so of the NBA's games in a given season are total meaningless crap, where malingering overpaid underachievers go out and play uncoached street ball and then intentionally dribble it off their foot in order to intentionally lose games and get a pat on the back from their coach and GM. 20% of the NBA's product being a total joke is not actually that bad, and besides we can't expect every player to play good and hard every night, there has to be an escape valve for bad teams and tanking is it."

But wait, it gets even worse: Because consider, and this ALMOST happened to OKC this year at the start of the season, but consider what happens when a smallish market team that is considered a top contender gets a couple of key injuries to its superstar players or starts off the season with a string of losses.

Right? You see it, right?

When OKC had Durant and Westbrook out and were 4-11 or 4-18 or whatever, they were probably oh-so-close to jumping on the tanking bandwagon, and if those players were out for a longer time they would certainly have started tanking.

So in other words, any promising contender or top contending team that gets off to a rough start (say 5-10 in the tough Western Conference, or 10-25) may immediately just decide that it's better to mail in the rest of the season.

THEN you've got a number of your top televised marquee games and another 1%-2% of your league games that are total worthless crap.

Again, you might say "Sssmush, the NBA is so great, with such a great product, such high tv revenues and such awesome refereeing and competitive structure that it does't really matter if 25% of our total regular season league games are thrown and/or total crap. Our product is just that strong that we don't care. And furthermore, how is a team like the 76'rs ever goiing to get better unless we give them a strong incentive to intentionally lose 100% of their games over a three year period?"

And at that point I just have to tell you you've answered your own question. The draft lottery should (MUST) be completely un-weighted, with every team having an equal random chance for the top spot. We might perhaps say that the bottom ten teams get a double chance, but that would be it. Other than that, draft order as determined by the lottery would be 100% random and could never be improved by "tanking."

NBA: Listen to me know and believe me later. Implement these (easy) rule fixes. David Silver you should publicly campaign and shame and harangue the dissenting owners. Otherwise your sport, and by extension you, are a complete joke and I myself may eventually have to give up my following of the NBA as a sport. Football has improved, so has baseball, there is MMA, there is college basketball, etc.

It is in fact very possible that NBA basketball has begun a decline into irrelevance and minor-league status, ironically led by fire-brand once glorious franchises like the 76'rs and the Celtics (with Magic Johnson trying to hop on there too). What a joke.

What a JOKE. What a joke.

Fix this.
I'm going to say a word and I want to know if you have considered this word; Rebuilding.

No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.
This idea would absolutely be the worst idea in the history of ideas. Imagine if Golden State got the first pick? It would be unbalance the league.


But leaving that aside a flat 1-30 draft is perfectly fine. In the grand scheme of things there is not that much difference between #1 and #30, and in fact many outstanding players such as Kevin Love, Carlos Boozer, and Tony Parker were drafted in the SECOND round, long after many lottery failures. Kwahi Leonard was a low first rounder.

Kevin Love was the 5th pick, no where near the second round. Tony Parker was the 28th pick and I wouldn't call Leonard being the 15th pick low first round.

The only way to win is to build a winning culture.

And here, let's do this test: Bring out the 76'rs GM on television, and I will ask him if the 76'rs are tanking.

WHEN he says "no, we would never tank" well then that proves that he is either an incompetent GM and the 76'rs suck so historically bad that tanking is just an excuse, OR he is a liar.

So you've got the leader of one of the NBA's flagship franchises, on whom tens of millions of dollars are wagered every year, publicly LYING about the fact that his team is purposefully throwing games.
Or he will say we are rebuilding right now or say we are building towards a great future here at the 76ers. There is a diffrence between rebuilding and tanking.

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 08:34 AM
Problem with this, is what happens when a super team like the Cavs get to add a top prospect like Okafor?

Is this really better for the game?



I think the real solution is a more complete D-league and development system for players like they have in baseball and their minor leagues.

Guys don't have to go to college, and can be drafted as early as 16.

Then guys go straight to the D-league where every team has 2-4 teams playing in varying leagues.

Some guys work on development, some guys are career bench players trying to get a call up and compete against the guys developing. Teams could work on developing players for specific roles (let's say a guy is good at one aspect of the game, let's say a PF who has good post defense, but is really poor at rebounding). This is a chance to develop a second or third skill set for the kid so that maybe he can be a useful bench player for your organization.


Now teams are taking guys who are much further away from being in the NBA and ready.

No 16 year old in the country is anywhere close to being NBA ready, hell LeBron was as close as anyone and he still needed time to develop.

This would make the guys that get drafted in the lottery portion of the draft bigger wild cards. Because you really don't know how these kids are going to develop. Heck, many of them are still going to get taller.


They can finish their high school and college educations while in these instructional leagues. They get drafted and teams simply get picks based on how they finish the season. The kids are paid by the big league clubs and can be traded and released.


Nobody is going to outright tank anymore. Because the difference from the first and second pick in the next draft of 16 year olds isn't as valuable. You have to actually develop your talent now. And the teams that are better and scouting and development will do much better.


^ That is a really strong post with a lot of really good ideas.

My only criticism is that the more immediate concern should be to urgently stop the current hemmoraging of wholesale tanking going on now, which with Magic's comments risks coming completely out of the closet to establish a league where tanking is the norm.

I'd say first we have to immediately stop what is going on right now, and then we can start to build and implement the excellent structural changes you recommend, which are great for the love and sport of basketball.

PhillyFaninLA
12-11-2014, 08:36 AM
they are just sucking as they have a majority of years in their history.


Sixers are 3rd all time in wins and are tied for 5th most titles all time....know your history before you bash a teams history.

Sssmush
12-11-2014, 08:45 AM
I'm going to say a word and I want to know if you have considered this word; Rebuilding.

This idea would absolutely be the worst idea in the history of ideas. Imagine if Golden State got the first pick? It would be unbalance the league.


Kevin Love was the 5th pick, no where near the second round. Tony Parker was the 28th pick and I wouldn't call Leonard being the 15th pick low first round.

Or he will say we are rebuilding right now or say we are building towards a great future here at the 76ers. There is a diffrence between rebuilding and tanking.

Wow ok I was super wrong about Kevin Love LoL. But Boozer was a 2nd rounder and many second rounders have fared far better in the league than many "lottery" picks.

But as for the 76'rs GM, in the wake of Magic's comments (which are huge because he was a part owner of the team who is still closely involved with the Lakers) I would say that some media person, even on the scale of a Barbara Walters, a Bill O'Reilly, an Andrea Mitchell etc, should seriously ask this guy directly on camera is your team purposefully tanking. The opportunity is there.

I think this story is HUGE and wow I mean I'm just saying yo. NBA get on this fast your league looks like a joke right now.

raiderfaninTX
12-11-2014, 08:59 AM
Give the bottom 10 teams the same weighted chance, then if a team has not won more than 20 games cut the odds in half.

Attach financial penalties to teams who lose more than 60 games, the fine should be called "failure to represent the Logo."

mudvayne387
12-11-2014, 09:19 AM
It is really quite simple, just give all non playoff teams equal odds of acquiring the #1 pick. First of all, it would stop teams from tanking all together and second of all, it will potentially catapult a team like the Suns or Wolves to the next level.

mike_noodles
12-11-2014, 09:34 AM
Op had to comment on this, couldn't do so in of three thousand other threads on the same topic in the past two months.

mike_noodles
12-11-2014, 09:36 AM
And want to fix it, need to fix more than the draft lottery, have to prevent super teams.

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 09:56 AM
No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

lol this dumbass idea would ruin the NBA. yeaaaa lets give the Spurts the #1 pick a year after winning the title, parity for everyone!!!!!

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 09:56 AM
Problem with this, is what happens when a super team like the Cavs get to add a top prospect like Okafor?

Is this really better for the game?



I think the real solution is a more complete D-league and development system for players like they have in baseball and their minor leagues.

Guys don't have to go to college, and can be drafted as early as 16.

Then guys go straight to the D-league where every team has 2-4 teams playing in varying leagues.

guys work on development, some guys are career bench players trying to get a call up and compete against the guys developing. Teams could work on developing players for specific roles (let's say a guy is good at one aspect of the game, let's say a PF who has good post defense, but is really poor at rebounding). This is a chance to develop a second or third skill set for the kid so that maybe he can be a useful bench player for your organization.


Now teams are taking guys who are much further away from being in the NBA and ready.

No 16 year old in the country is anywhere close to being NBA ready, hell LeBron was as close as anyone and he still needed time to develop.

This would make the guys that get drafted in the lottery portion of the draft bigger wild cards. Because you really don't know how these kids are going to develop. Heck, many of them are still going to get taller.


They can finish their high school and college educations while in these instructional leagues. They get drafted and teams simply get picks based on how they finish the season. The kids are paid by the big league clubs and can be traded and released.


Nobody is going to outright tank anymore. Because the difference from the first and second pick in the next draft of 16 year olds isn't as valuable. You have to actually develop your talent now. And the teams that are better and scouting and development will do much better.

Don't think NBA wants to add to the millions of kids from the projects putting off school to play ball. Half the guys in the NBA already don't give a **** about school and frankly a lot aren't committed to get decent college education. A lot of these kids are coming from poor situations and school is probably the last thing on their mind once they get some sort of draft bonus or something.

Feel like Stern really wanted that college requirement so he can at least encourage the project kids to try out school for a bit. Can't really say I blame him, though I don't think he should take a stance on that. If a 16 year old wants to practice ball over school and potentially ruin his future because he thinks he's the **** and will make a living out of basketball when he's not good enough, I say let them.

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 10:02 AM
Just give the worst record the number one pick and so on. I think the draft lottery is a huge joke including Rose going to the Bulls with a 1.6% chance and especially the Cavs getting 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years. That is a joke and is ruining Basketball. Let them tank. But to keep giving good teams, who were on the verge of playoffs #1 picks is killing basketball.

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 10:02 AM
Give the bottom 10 teams the same weighted chance, then if a team has not won more than 20 games cut the odds in half.

Attach financial penalties to teams who lose more than 60 games, the fine should be called "failure to represent the Logo."

hahaha you cant fine a team based on their record.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 10:03 AM
hahaha you cant fine a team based on their record.

Not yet but they can technically put it if they want. Just call it "detrimental to the league".

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 10:05 AM
Just give the worst record the number one pick and so on. I think the draft lottery is a huge joke including Rose going to the Bulls with a 1.6% chance and especially the Cavs getting 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years. That is a joke and is ruining Basketball. Let them tank. But to keep giving good teams, who were on the verge of playoffs #1 picks is killing basketball.

Most of the lottery winners probably have had the 1st-5th worst record in the league. What the hell are you talking about?

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 10:05 AM
Not yet but they can technically put it if they want. Just call it "detrimental to the league".

no its still ridiculous. some teams really do have bad luck, what if a team losses 60 games and 10 of them are by 6 pts or less and 15 by 3 pts or less?

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 10:09 AM
no its still ridiculous. some teams really do have bad luck, what if a team losses 60 games and 10 of them are by 6 pts or less and 15 by 3 pts or less?

Still fine them. Encourages them to make moves that can win games. Even then, crappy teams (purpose or not) are detrimental to the league and a lot are fine with it because they get good picks. I'll still all for tanking but let's at least punish the tankers to not let them off the hook that easily.

ewing
12-11-2014, 10:14 AM
like these teams would be entertaining to watch if they didn't give there young guys run

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 10:30 AM
Most of the lottery winners probably have had the 1st-5th worst record in the league. What the hell are you talking about?

That for Cleveland to get 3 in the last 4 years is stupid and makes no sense. That's more first overall picks in the span of 4 years then most franchises have in their entire history. That is what the hell I am talking about.

Arch Stanton
12-11-2014, 10:39 AM
That for Cleveland to get 3 in the last 4 years is stupid and makes no sense. That's more first overall picks in the span of 4 years then most franchises have in their entire history. That is what the hell I am talking about.

Do you have any proof that it is rigged or are you just going on your daily tantrum about how life is not fair?

dalton749
12-11-2014, 10:42 AM
They need to go with the wheel.
Every 10 years every team is guaranteed a top 3 pick, so teams can plan accordingly.
Outside of the top 3 they could follow the standings where the worst team can get the 4th-7th kind of thing.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 10:52 AM
That for Cleveland to get 3 in the last 4 years is stupid and makes no sense. That's more first overall picks in the span of 4 years then most franchises have in their entire history. That is what the hell I am talking about.

:facepalm:

thats just pure luck. the odds are weighted in favor of the worst team.

yes, its called being lucky. there is a huge process and everything is checked by a major accounting firm i believe.

but if things don't go your way everytime, do you yell out 'its rigged' everytime?

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 10:55 AM
Still fine them. Encourages them to make moves that can win games. Even then, crappy teams (purpose or not) are detrimental to the league and a lot are fine with it because they get good picks. I'll still all for tanking but let's at least punish the tankers to not let them off the hook that easily.

you cant force a team to sign medicore players for money they arent worth. rebuilding is part of sports and it always will be. Blazers, Warriors, Thunder, Bulls, spurs, aer all teams rebuilt the proper way by developing their own talent and not making dumb moves to disrupt that development like the Pistons did. to further that the Knicks, Nets, and Lakers are the reason why your ridiculous idea is even more ridiculous these teams paid and overpaid players to try and compete and have failed miserably and are some of the worst teams in the league to watch

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 10:56 AM
:facepalm:

thats just pure luck. the odds are weighted in favor of the worst team.

yes, its called being lucky. there is a huge process and everything is checked by a major accounting firm i believe.

but if things don't go your way everytime, do you yell out 'its rigged' everytime?

This is a thread about the NBA draft lottery. I was just stating my opinion about how it should be worst record gets 1st pick and on down like the NFL. I never mentioned rigged in this thread, but yes, I do think it is rigged. I said that even when things did go my way. Period.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 11:09 AM
This is a thread about the NBA draft lottery. I was just stating my opinion about how it should be worst record gets 1st pick and on down like the NFL. I never mentioned rigged in this thread, but yes, I do think it is rigged. I said that even when things did go my way. Period.

well Cavs won 4 drafts in a row. I'm sure you must be saying there is something wrong with the system i.e rigged.

There would be even more tanking if the worst team gets the best pick automatically.

You know why Basketball should not follow the NFL? because 1 player can make the biggest difference.
1 player drafted 1st overall in the NBA can save a franchise. a player drafted in the NFL might not even make the biggest difference - even if they are the best talent. You still need huge player dynamics and team building and you can't really count on the draft to become a good team. you need veterans and seasoned players. It could take a decade to get a good team if you went through the draft - and by then you might be relocated. NFL teams are huge. The worst team needs the best player in the draft.

NHL as well, you need so many working parts on a team. 4 lines plus goalie depth plus farm system. worst team also needs the worst player to build through the years.

1 player won't make a big difference the two aforementioned leagues.

1 player in the NBA will make a big difference - which would lead to worst tanking jobs than the 76ers

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 11:16 AM
well Cavs won 4 drafts in a row. I'm sure you must be saying there is something wrong with the system i.e rigged.

There would be even more tanking if the worst team gets the best pick automatically.

You know why Basketball should not follow the NFL? because 1 player can make the biggest difference.
1 player drafted 1st overall in the NBA can save a franchise. a player drafted in the NFL might not even make the biggest difference - even if they are the best talent. You still need huge player dynamics and team building and you can't really count on the draft to become a good team. you need veterans and seasoned players. It could take a decade to get a good team if you went through the draft - and by then you might be relocated. NFL teams are huge. The worst team needs the best player in the draft.

NHL as well, you need so many working parts on a team. 4 lines plus goalie depth plus farm system. worst team also needs the worst player to build through the years.

1 player won't make a big difference the two aforementioned leagues.

1 player in the NBA will make a big difference - which would lead to worst tanking jobs than the 76ers

So you think it is fair for better teams to get the best players with the amount of impact it could have? I would be upset if ANY franchise got 3 #1 overall picks out of 4 years when they did not have the worst record. The NBA lottery system is dumb. Just because your favorite team got all the benefits from it, surely you can see how it is not a fair system and is ruining the NBA. Especially the East.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 11:16 AM
you can do even odds for the lottery without adding all 30 teams to it.

It might add some incentive to making the playoffs when you only get a 1/14 chance if you miss it. It basically eliminates the severity of tanking and restores a team outlook to "GOOD" or "BAD" and seasons are just like other sports "PLAYOFFS" or "NO PLAYOFFS".

It is terrible when the general public knows that being in a lower seed or end of the lottery is "purgatory"

if you eliminate the extreme end of the lottery, everything else will balance out.

As it is now, you need success to fall out of the sky through cap space or high picks. So why pay anybody in the mean time?

Marginal improvements can be productive instead of counterproductive. over time, maybe the league would balance out as well.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 11:24 AM
So you think it is fair for better teams to get the best players with the amount of impact it could have? I would be upset if ANY franchise got 3 #1 overall picks out of 4 years when they did not have the worst record. The NBA lottery system is dumb. Just because your favorite team got all the benefits from it, surely you can see how it is not a fair system and is ruining the NBA. Especially the East.

i think the original argument is that the draft is ruining the sport.

but you haven't seen the flip side is that teams are DELIBERATELY losing to get a BETTER CHANCE to win the lottery. IF NBA teams know that its a sure thing, there would be WAYYYYYY MORE tanking, making the sport even more ridiculous to watch.

I think its a good thing that some teams are actually trying to win, regardless of the situation, miss the playoffs and still end up with the #1 pick. I like that fringe playoffs teams can get #1.

Cleveland getting those draft picks is an aberration to the system but it is what it is.

nycericanguy
12-11-2014, 11:34 AM
So all non-playoff teams have an equal shot at 1-14 picks?

I like that idea.

problem with that is that then you'd have fringe playoff teams tanking late in the year to try to get into the lottery. But I think that's at least better than having teams tank all year.

There is no easy solution. Maybe the 10 worst teams should all have an equal chance.

tanking is getting out of control... right now I'm hoping the knicks lose every game... it's counter-intuitive as a fan, but everyone wants that young, cheap franchise player.

another option would be to make a rule that teams cannot get back to back lottery picks or at least back to back top 3 picks.

So teams like PHI can't just tank every year...

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 11:37 AM
i think the original argument is that the draft is ruining the sport.

but you haven't seen the flip side is that teams are DELIBERATELY losing to get a BETTER CHANCE to win the lottery. IF NBA teams know that its a sure thing, there would be WAYYYYYY MORE tanking, making the sport even more ridiculous to watch.

I think its a good thing that some teams are actually trying to win, regardless of the situation, miss the playoffs and still end up with the #1 pick. I like that fringe playoffs teams can get #1.

Cleveland getting those draft picks is an aberration to the system but it is what it is.

I guess I see the new "Super Teams" and the manipulation of rosters behind the scenes and putting so many superstars on one team as more ridiculous to watch then tanking. Not to mention those teams forcing tanking because there aren't any other options. The East itself has been a one team contest for 4 years and it looks like this trend is going to continue for several more years. Stacked teams getting more #1 picks has just as much potential to ruin the NBA as tanking. There has to be some way to balance the two extremes.

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 11:43 AM
you cant force a team to sign medicore players for money they arent worth. rebuilding is part of sports and it always will be. Blazers, Warriors, Thunder, Bulls, spurs, aer all teams rebuilt the proper way by developing their own talent and not making dumb moves to disrupt that development like the Pistons did. to further that the Knicks, Nets, and Lakers are the reason why your ridiculous idea is even more ridiculous these teams paid and overpaid players to try and compete and have failed miserably and are some of the worst teams in the league to watch

Except Im not forcing people to sign mediocre players and Im not saying teams cant rebuild with young players,

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 11:49 AM
so do what then? you cant force teams to win games, you cant force them to sign players they dont like. it doesnt even matter bcuz there is literally no way the owners would ever allow the league to fine teams for losses

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 11:49 AM
problem with that is that then you'd have fringe playoff teams tanking late in the year to try to get into the lottery. But I think that's at least better than having teams tank all year.

There is no easy solution. Maybe the 10 worst teams should all have an equal chance.

tanking is getting out of control... right now I'm hoping the knicks lose every game... it's counter-intuitive as a fan, but everyone wants that young, cheap franchise player.

another option would be to make a rule that teams cannot get back to back lottery picks or at least back to back top 3 picks.

So teams like PHI can't just tank every year...

The only way to stop tanking is making the division winners the teams with the best chances at the #1 pick.

and then maybe a rearrangement of the divisions every year to sprout new division winners and for fans to see new teams. All division winners in a previous year are to be placed in one to two elite divisions.

just an idea.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 11:52 AM
so do what then? you cant force teams to win games, you cant force them to sign players they dont like. it doesnt even matter bcuz there is literally no way the owners would ever allow the league to fine teams for losses

reduce the reward for sucking, its that simple.

Most casual fans can see that being stuck in the middle is worse than being at the bottom.

This is a systemic problem.

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 11:52 AM
problem with that is that then you'd have fringe playoff teams tanking late in the year to try to get into the lottery. But I think that's at least better than having teams tank all year.

There is no easy solution. Maybe the 10 worst teams should all have an equal chance.

tanking is getting out of control... right now I'm hoping the knicks lose every game... it's counter-intuitive as a fan, but everyone wants that young, cheap franchise player.

another option would be to make a rule that teams cannot get back to back lottery picks or at least back to back top 3 picks.

So teams like PHI can't just tank every year...

you mean for 2 years

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 11:53 AM
I guess I see the new "Super Teams" and the manipulation of rosters behind the scenes and putting so many superstars on one team as more ridiculous to watch then tanking. Not to mention those teams forcing tanking because there aren't any other options. The East itself has been a one team contest for 4 years and it looks like this trend is going to continue for several more years. Stacked teams getting more #1 picks has just as much potential to ruin the NBA as tanking. There has to be some way to balance the two extremes.

well they can't be that stacked if they didn't make the playoffs. it's not ruining the NBA at all. if anything, it made the Cavs into a powerhouse. because of that, there is now additional better team in the East.

what the 76ers are doing is ruining the NBA

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 11:54 AM
reduce the reward for sucking, its that simple.

Most casual fans can see that being stuck in the middle is worse than being at the bottom.

This is a systemic problem.

better off with age limit to help reduce busts

Raps18-19 Champ
12-11-2014, 11:59 AM
so do what then? you cant force teams to win games, you cant force them to sign players they dont like. it doesnt even matter bcuz there is literally no way the owners would ever allow the league to fine teams for losses

No one is forcing a team to do anything. But teams are literally making profits for bad teams. Rewards need to be reduced.

Thats because owners have no integrity. Complain about thanking then not do anything about it if it affectstheir profits.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 11:59 AM
better off with age limit to help reduce busts

There were plenty of busts in the 80s and 90s when players regularly stayed 4 years. Raising the age limit by a year won't change that.

Plus, reducing the risk of players taken would make the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th picks all more valuable right? Not only would it make the 1st pick more valuable it would make the teams OK with the consolation prize. Not that I think raising the age limit would do this anyway...

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 12:10 PM
of course there were, some teams are bad at scouting, it happens. But most players today need more development or even to learn how to play the game and teams can stop drafting the rawest prospects on potential and praying they work out

Sandman
12-11-2014, 12:11 PM
That isn't going to change teams tanking to get their hands on the best ones.

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 12:18 PM
of course not. but the lotto is ruining the league anyway. When was the last time we had this many contenders? Problem is all but 2 are out west but eventually that will shift/balance. its jsut the way the league, what incentive is there to try and win a few extra games when your season becomes lost? Sixers are on their 2nd rebuild and did not have the worst record last year and quite possibly wont have the worst one this year and if we were at full stregnth all season we woul have more wins than the Lakers, Pistons, and Knicks

Sandman
12-11-2014, 12:23 PM
of course not. but the lotto is ruining the league anyway. When was the last time we had this many contenders? Problem is all but 2 are out west but eventually that will shift/balance. its jsut the way the league, what incentive is there to try and win a few extra games when your season becomes lost? Sixers are on their 2nd rebuild and did not have the worst record last year and quite possibly wont have the worst one this year and if we were at full stregnth all season we woul have more wins than the Lakers, Pistons, and Knicks

and thread

Pierzynski4Prez
12-11-2014, 12:33 PM
No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

You should've just made this post your 1st post, instead of posting a 10,000 word essay that 99.5% of the people that come into this thread won't read over half of.

Tony_Starks
12-11-2014, 12:36 PM
Well first off the Sixers are not only blatantly tanking, they're rubbing every bodies nose in it.

That aside I agree that if you gave every team the same chance in the lottery the entire landscape of the league would change.

It will never happen though because the small market owners would cry crocodile tears if someone like the Bulls, Knicks, or Lakers got the # 1 pick....

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 12:51 PM
lol misssed that but u know its a typo

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 12:52 PM
Well first off the Sixers are not only blatantly tanking, they're rubbing every bodies nose in it.

That aside I agree that if you gave every team the same chance in the lottery the entire landscape of the league would change.

It will never happen though because the small market owners would cry crocodile tears if someone like the Bulls, Knicks, or Lakers got the # 1 pick....

except the Knicks and Pistons wont let us tank in peace

nycericanguy
12-11-2014, 12:54 PM
[/[/B]QUOTE]you mean for 2 years[/QUOTE]

2 years... 3 years... whatever. Point is no team could get a top say, 5 pick consecutive years. if you get a top 5 pick one year, and the next year you are in the lottery again, then you get moved to the last pick of the lottery.

so every year the top 5 picks would go to different teams.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
12-11-2014, 01:12 PM
its pretty easy to fix the lottery to stop tanking, but NBA is too dumb.

Tony_Starks
12-11-2014, 01:22 PM
except the Knicks and Pistons wont let us tank in peace

Well they're mad because they weren't trying to tank, they just suck way more than expected. But both of those teams have trade chips, I don't see what their problem is.....

JustinTime
12-11-2014, 01:22 PM
I'm sorry but I just have to comment on this. I am hearing the same insanity / inanity everyday about the NBA and I just can't take it anymore I have to say something.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that no team will actually ADMIT that they are tanking... which in a way is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, the 76'rs are NOT tanking, they are just sucking as they have a majority of years in their history. Chances are you could change the incentives tomorrow, flip the lottery upside down so that the best record gets the first pick, and the 76'rs would still suck just about as bad. I mean it's cute that the ESPN media guys kind of try to smooth things over for them, you know *wink wink* of course they're tanking, but if you ask me they would still finish well into the lottery no matter how hard they tried. PERIOD.

But, leaving that aside, I've just got to point out that NBA tanking is flat out RUINING the sport. Let's do some math: for every team that is in fact "tanking", i.e. purposefully losing games and/or fielding an uncompetitive team in order to accumulate losses so they can get a higher draft pick, 3% of your total regular season games for the whole league become irrelevant non-sporting events, lacking any real sporting or competitive value. So, for every three teams you have tanking, then disregarding the games that overlap when they play each other (creating an absurd Globetrotters tank vs tank situation) you are losing almost 10% of your ENTIRE LEAGUE SEASON, your entire annual "crop" or "product," to total crap nonsense.

Of course it is hugely ugly and disrespectful to the sport that a team like the 76'rs is willing to flush an entire season (or two, or three, or four) just to get a "higher draft pick," but apparently some of these GMs and owners are perfectly willing to do that.

Heck, the 76'rs even tanked, got the 2nd overall pick MKG, and then were looking to dump him in another stupid trade. In other words, they flushed an ENTIRE season to get a prospect, then are willing to just dump that prospect for more or less nothing.

And now even the Magic Johnson's of the world are talking about tanking, advocating for the Lakers--historically the league's strongest franchise--to outright tank to try and get the worst record in the league.

What.A.Joke.

AND, let's not forget that the league is making strong overtures to the U.S. courts and the gambling world, to legalize sports betting on the NBA. All this WHILE it is acknowledged more and more openly that a number of teams are outright tanking (i.e. "throwing" games and seasons). See also: Chicago Black Sox.

So, maybe you might say "Sssmush, only 6 to 8 teams are outright tanking, and those are lottery teams anyway. So that means that only 20% or so of the NBA's games in a given season are total meaningless crap, where malingering overpaid underachievers go out and play uncoached street ball and then intentionally dribble it off their foot in order to intentionally lose games and get a pat on the back from their coach and GM. 20% of the NBA's product being a total joke is not actually that bad, and besides we can't expect every player to play good and hard every night, there has to be an escape valve for bad teams and tanking is it."

But wait, it gets even worse: Because consider, and this ALMOST happened to OKC this year at the start of the season, but consider what happens when a smallish market team that is considered a top contender gets a couple of key injuries to its superstar players or starts off the season with a string of losses.

Right? You see it, right?

When OKC had Durant and Westbrook out and were 4-11 or 4-18 or whatever, they were probably oh-so-close to jumping on the tanking bandwagon, and if those players were out for a longer time they would certainly have started tanking.

So in other words, any promising contender or top contending team that gets off to a rough start (say 5-10 in the tough Western Conference, or 10-25) may immediately just decide that it's better to mail in the rest of the season.

THEN you've got a number of your top televised marquee games and another 1%-2% of your league games that are total worthless crap.

Again, you might say "Sssmush, the NBA is so great, with such a great product, such high tv revenues and such awesome refereeing and competitive structure that it does't really matter if 25% of our total regular season league games are thrown and/or total crap. Our product is just that strong that we don't care. And furthermore, how is a team like the 76'rs ever goiing to get better unless we give them a strong incentive to intentionally lose 100% of their games over a three year period?"

And at that point I just have to tell you you've answered your own question. The draft lottery should (MUST) be completely un-weighted, with every team having an equal random chance for the top spot. We might perhaps say that the bottom ten teams get a double chance, but that would be it. Other than that, draft order as determined by the lottery would be 100% random and could never be improved by "tanking."

NBA: Listen to me know and believe me later. Implement these (easy) rule fixes. David Silver you should publicly campaign and shame and harangue the dissenting owners. Otherwise your sport, and by extension you, are a complete joke and I myself may eventually have to give up my following of the NBA as a sport. Football has improved, so has baseball, there is MMA, there is college basketball, etc.

It is in fact very possible that NBA basketball has begun a decline into irrelevance and minor-league status, ironically led by fire-brand once glorious franchises like the 76'rs and the Celtics (with Magic Johnson trying to hop on there too). What a joke.

What a JOKE. What a joke.

Fix this.

Lebron flat out ruined the NBA.

Crackadalic
12-11-2014, 01:41 PM
I get the competitive aspect this will bring but that will leave the truly bad teams to stay bad if every team has a chance at the top spot.

Bad teams would be force to be bad for almost 6-8 years until they get a chance to randomly get a top pick. Fans won't watch a product that has no hope

JWO35
12-11-2014, 01:42 PM
Either just have the draft be based off record or let it be a 1 game elimination tournament to determine draft order. The lottery does nothing but keeps the basement teams in the basement


A 30 team lottery is worse than the one currently in place. It would follow the "Rich get richer and poor get poorer" if you allow Championship teams to continue to be light years ahead basement teams. It wouldn't make sense to let a team like San Antonio a well established championship team to have the same odds as the 76ers who will most likely finish with about 50-40 less wins than them.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 01:49 PM
Either just have the draft be based off record or let it be a 1 game elimination tournament to determine draft order. The lottery does nothing but keeps the basement teams in the basement


A 30 team lottery is worse than the one currently in place. It would follow the "Rich get richer and poor get poorer" if you allow Championship teams to continue to be light years ahead basement teams. It wouldn't make sense to let a team like San Antonio a well established championship team to have the same odds as the 76ers who will most likely finish with about 50-40 less wins than them.

not true. OKC Thunder for example.

Spurs
Pacers the last couple of years.
Golden State


guys its obviously NOT the lottery thats keeping teams down. Its the work of the GM who can't put together a good team together.

The lottery isn't really ruining the league, its the dumb *** GMs which run this league, giving out big contracts for players that don't deserve it, drafting bad players, putting players that don't compliment one another

PhillyFaninLA
12-11-2014, 02:12 PM
My plan to fix the lottery, you keep the lottery as is or some modified form but it is only for 2 - 14, number 1 goes in alphabetical order to every team and is an untradeable pick.

You start out with Atlanta, because of the A, then Boston, etc....This takes away competition for the 1st overall seed.

or

You cannot be top 3 eligible in back to back years (or only 1 time in 3 years) but keep the rest the same.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 02:19 PM
not true. OKC Thunder for example.

Spurs
Pacers the last couple of years.
Golden State


guys its obviously NOT the lottery thats keeping teams down. Its the work of the GM who can't put together a good team together.

The lottery isn't really ruining the league, its the dumb *** GMs which run this league, giving out big contracts for players that don't deserve it, drafting bad players, putting players that don't compliment one another

Nobody said the lottery was keeping teams down, its the opposite. Its making teams weigh themselves down on purpose.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 02:21 PM
Nobody said the lottery was keeping teams down, its the opposite. Its making teams weigh themselves down on purpose.

He just said it.


Either just have the draft be based off record or let it be a 1 game elimination tournament to determine draft order. The lottery does nothing but keeps the basement teams in the basement


A 30 team lottery is worse than the one currently in place. It would follow the "Rich get richer and poor get poorer" if you allow Championship teams to continue to be light years ahead basement teams. It wouldn't make sense to let a team like San Antonio a well established championship team to have the same odds as the 76ers who will most likely finish with about 50-40 less wins than them.

he

Sandman
12-11-2014, 02:23 PM
My plan to fix the lottery, you keep the lottery as is or some modified form but it is only for 2 - 14, number 1 goes in alphabetical order to every team and is an untradeable pick.

You start out with Atlanta, because of the A, then Boston, etc....This takes away competition for the 1st overall seed.

or

You cannot be top 3 eligible in back to back years (or only 1 time in 3 years) but keep the rest the same.

then you have the #1 pick potentially going to playoff teams or NBA Champions, thats not the way to fix it either.

It should still be based on record, they just need to change how badly it is skewed. Then degree of sucking won't matter so much that you're cutting NBA players to add d-leaguers.

Give equal weight or much closer to equal weight (maybe 1% difference) and raffle off the first 5 or all 14 picks.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 02:24 PM
He just said it.



he

oops, must have quoted the wrong post. I meant to reply to the same guy he replied to.

Alayla
12-11-2014, 02:27 PM
I'm sorry but I just have to comment on this. I am hearing the same insanity / inanity everyday about the NBA and I just can't take it anymore I have to say something.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that no team will actually ADMIT that they are tanking... which in a way is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, the 76'rs are NOT tanking, they are just sucking as they have a majority of years in their history. Chances are you could change the incentives tomorrow, flip the lottery upside down so that the best record gets the first pick, and the 76'rs would still suck just about as bad. I mean it's cute that the ESPN media guys kind of try to smooth things over for them, you know *wink wink* of course they're tanking, but if you ask me they would still finish well into the lottery no matter how hard they tried. PERIOD.

But, leaving that aside, I've just got to point out that NBA tanking is flat out RUINING the sport. Let's do some math: for every team that is in fact "tanking", i.e. purposefully losing games and/or fielding an uncompetitive team in order to accumulate losses so they can get a higher draft pick, 3% of your total regular season games for the whole league become irrelevant non-sporting events, lacking any real sporting or competitive value. So, for every three teams you have tanking, then disregarding the games that overlap when they play each other (creating an absurd Globetrotters tank vs tank situation) you are losing almost 10% of your ENTIRE LEAGUE SEASON, your entire annual "crop" or "product," to total crap nonsense.

Of course it is hugely ugly and disrespectful to the sport that a team like the 76'rs is willing to flush an entire season (or two, or three, or four) just to get a "higher draft pick," but apparently some of these GMs and owners are perfectly willing to do that.

Heck, the 76'rs even tanked, got the 2nd overall pick MKG, and then were looking to dump him in another stupid trade. In other words, they flushed an ENTIRE season to get a prospect, then are willing to just dump that prospect for more or less nothing.

And now even the Magic Johnson's of the world are talking about tanking, advocating for the Lakers--historically the league's strongest franchise--to outright tank to try and get the worst record in the league.

What.A.Joke.

AND, let's not forget that the league is making strong overtures to the U.S. courts and the gambling world, to legalize sports betting on the NBA. All this WHILE it is acknowledged more and more openly that a number of teams are outright tanking (i.e. "throwing" games and seasons). See also: Chicago Black Sox.

So, maybe you might say "Sssmush, only 6 to 8 teams are outright tanking, and those are lottery teams anyway. So that means that only 20% or so of the NBA's games in a given season are total meaningless crap, where malingering overpaid underachievers go out and play uncoached street ball and then intentionally dribble it off their foot in order to intentionally lose games and get a pat on the back from their coach and GM. 20% of the NBA's product being a total joke is not actually that bad, and besides we can't expect every player to play good and hard every night, there has to be an escape valve for bad teams and tanking is it."

But wait, it gets even worse: Because consider, and this ALMOST happened to OKC this year at the start of the season, but consider what happens when a smallish market team that is considered a top contender gets a couple of key injuries to its superstar players or starts off the season with a string of losses.

Right? You see it, right?

When OKC had Durant and Westbrook out and were 4-11 or 4-18 or whatever, they were probably oh-so-close to jumping on the tanking bandwagon, and if those players were out for a longer time they would certainly have started tanking.

So in other words, any promising contender or top contending team that gets off to a rough start (say 5-10 in the tough Western Conference, or 10-25) may immediately just decide that it's better to mail in the rest of the season.

THEN you've got a number of your top televised marquee games and another 1%-2% of your league games that are total worthless crap.

Again, you might say "Sssmush, the NBA is so great, with such a great product, such high tv revenues and such awesome refereeing and competitive structure that it does't really matter if 25% of our total regular season league games are thrown and/or total crap. Our product is just that strong that we don't care. And furthermore, how is a team like the 76'rs ever goiing to get better unless we give them a strong incentive to intentionally lose 100% of their games over a three year period?"

And at that point I just have to tell you you've answered your own question. The draft lottery should (MUST) be completely un-weighted, with every team having an equal random chance for the top spot. We might perhaps say that the bottom ten teams get a double chance, but that would be it. Other than that, draft order as determined by the lottery would be 100% random and could never be improved by "tanking."

NBA: Listen to me know and believe me later. Implement these (easy) rule fixes. David Silver you should publicly campaign and shame and harangue the dissenting owners. Otherwise your sport, and by extension you, are a complete joke and I myself may eventually have to give up my following of the NBA as a sport. Football has improved, so has baseball, there is MMA, there is college basketball, etc.

It is in fact very possible that NBA basketball has begun a decline into irrelevance and minor-league status, ironically led by fire-brand once glorious franchises like the 76'rs and the Celtics (with Magic Johnson trying to hop on there too). What a joke.

What a JOKE. What a joke.

Fix this.

I stopped reading at this WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I guess you got the sixers confused with the bobcats?

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 02:29 PM
I stopped reading at this WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I guess you got the sixers confused with the bobcats?

HAHA

i'm surprised noone picked that up. good patience to get even that far down in the post =P

Synyster89
12-11-2014, 03:23 PM
not true. OKC Thunder for example.

Spurs
Pacers the last couple of years.
Golden State


guys its obviously NOT the lottery thats keeping teams down. Its the work of the GM who can't put together a good team together.

The lottery isn't really ruining the league, its the dumb *** GMs which run this league, giving out big contracts for players that don't deserve it, drafting bad players, putting players that don't compliment one another

So then why do you have a problem with the Sixers??? We are actually rebuilding correctly, teams like Detroit and Orlando are the teams that are poorly managed and signing guys like Jodie Meeks, Ben Gordon, and Channing Frye to ridiculous contracts. So would you rather the Sixers signed those players and wasted our cap space and player development just so we wouldn't be labeled as tankers? I just don't get all the Sixers hate.

As for the OP ripping Hinkie...name one poor decision he has made?

1.) Traded Jrue Holiday for Nerlens Noel (arguably the best player in the draft) and what later turned out to be Dario Saric.
2.) Drafted MCW 11th after trading Jrue Holiday
3.) Drafting Joel Embiid (arguably the best player in the draft)
4.) Acquiring Tony Wroten for a 2nd round pick and trade exception.
5.) Acquiring numerous 2nd round picks in various years for mediocre vets or cap space.
6.) Selecting KJ McDaniels in the 2nd round
7.) Signing Robert Covington from the D-League

I think he is doing a pretty damn good job. I think the Sixers can push 30+ wins as early as next year, and maybe more depending on who we sign/draft/or trade.

slashsnake
12-11-2014, 03:35 PM
I don't think tanking is ruining the league. Honestly, sure it costs some parity at times, but really, a 30 win sixer team or a 7 win sixer team... Neither really excites me anyways.

As for Synyster...

Like you said... Look at all those moves. They have the Sixers 2-19 this year with them. Not good. Its all based on the tanking, the hope that you can get another good pick and go for 30 wins next year. Lets wait and see the guys picked actually win before saying he's done anything but made a 35 win team a 10 win team. Until Nerlens is scoring in double digits, its hard to call getting him a great move.

Sandman
12-11-2014, 04:35 PM
I don't think tanking is ruining the league. Honestly, sure it costs some parity at times, but really, a 30 win sixer team or a 7 win sixer team... Neither really excites me anyways.

As for Synyster...

Like you said... Look at all those moves. They have the Sixers 2-19 this year with them. Not good. Its all based on the tanking, the hope that you can get another good pick and go for 30 wins next year. Lets wait and see the guys picked actually win before saying he's done anything but made a 35 win team a 10 win team. Until Nerlens is scoring in double digits, its hard to call getting him a great move.
You are better off being the worst team in the league than in the 6-8 spot in the playoffs.

This is how teams get away with it, because, simply put, it is true. To fans, there is little to no difference in degree of futility and many people root for their team to tank.

Parity is what gets lost and parity is what they need.

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 05:02 PM
well they can't be that stacked if they didn't make the playoffs. it's not ruining the NBA at all. if anything, it made the Cavs into a powerhouse. because of that, there is now additional better team in the East.

what the 76ers are doing is ruining the NBA

You should ask the fans of other teams in the East. Of course it turned the Cavs into a powerhouse. Any team that gets 3 out of the top 4 picks in 4 years has enough talent and cap space to lure talent and the ability to trade. The way that the draft lottery is, the Cavs reaped all the benefits while other teams got **** on.

Remember when the Heat formed their super team? It ruined the East for all other teams but the Heat. Now, the lottery (and other colluding) has done that again and has ruined basketball for a lot of fans.

So yes, the Draft Lottery is ruining the sport to me. Trust me, if the Bulls got 3 #1 picks in 4 years, my opinion would be the same.

alexander_37
12-11-2014, 05:17 PM
No ... just no... The lottery could use a little tweaking but ... just no

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 05:30 PM
You should ask the fans of other teams in the East. Of course it turned the Cavs into a powerhouse. Any team that gets 3 out of the top 4 picks in 4 years has enough talent and cap space to lure talent and the ability to trade. The way that the draft lottery is, the Cavs reaped all the benefits while other teams got **** on.

Remember when the Heat formed their super team? It ruined the East for all other teams but the Heat. Now, the lottery (and other colluding) has done that again and has ruined basketball for a lot of fans.

So yes, the Draft Lottery is ruining the sport to me. Trust me, if the Bulls got 3 #1 picks in 4 years, my opinion would be the same.

so how does that ruin basketball for you? go watch the western teams if you want good basketball.

FYL_McVeezy
12-11-2014, 05:36 PM
Lottery or no Lottery, teams will tank...sometimes teams just aren't that good and GMs try to capitalize on it...

You think teams don't tank in Football or other sports?

ewing
12-11-2014, 05:41 PM
i want the very best product the knicks and sixers can give me.

numba1CHANGsta
12-11-2014, 06:01 PM
Howcome we never hear teams from the NFL, MLB, or NHL "tanking"? something is seriously wrong with the NBA, but I don't think the lottery has to do with it. Imagine if they just went with the worst records as getting the first pick? we would have even more teams tanking

Quinnsanity
12-11-2014, 06:17 PM
Why is the lottery the problem? If anything it makes it harder to tank. In other sports the draft is determined strictly by record. Nobody cries foul there, but you can't tell me the Colts didn't have incentive to start sucking for Luck once they realized they couldn't win the Super Bowl without Peyton Manning. It's not a matter of incentivizing losing. It's a matter of giving bad teams faster avenues to improve. It's about creating parity and giving fans the idea of hope. Let's say the Sixers just sucked and they weren't guaranteed a decent pick. Why would Sixers fans even bother following the team? They'd just suck in perpetuity until their one-in-30 shot paid off. Your whole goal as a team should be to win the championship. THAT is what fans want. If you can't do that by honestly attempting to win then you should go the other way and lose. The draft gives fans of teams like the Sixers, Wolves and Pistons hope. They can't compete with the Lakers and Heat and other big boys by playing their game. The draft is their only option.

koreancabbage
12-11-2014, 06:22 PM
Howcome we never hear teams from the NFL, MLB, or NHL "tanking"? something is seriously wrong with the NBA, but I don't think the lottery has to do with it. Imagine if they just went with the worst records as getting the first pick? we would have even more teams tanking

EXACTLY.

the lottery is fine as it it. Worst team has the best chance but nothing else.

In fact, i don't really care if the 76ers tank. I hope they don't get the #1 pick and it rarely happens (worst team =/= #1 pick)

Maybe all the good GMs are in the West? that could be a theory why. maybe Detroit/ Charlotte/ Philly/ Brooklyn/ NYK/ have new or bad GMs? I'm just stating maybe's

Jamiecballer
12-11-2014, 06:35 PM
No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.
I don't agree with your rant but I agree 100% on a totally random draft

alexander_37
12-11-2014, 07:12 PM
Howcome we never hear teams from the NFL, MLB, or NHL "tanking"? something is seriously wrong with the NBA, but I don't think the lottery has to do with it. Imagine if they just went with the worst records as getting the first pick? we would have even more teams tanking

You do...

First of all MLB is a total craps shoot besides a few rare cases.

The NHL you do... but it's next to MLB in being a craps shoot. Unless there's a Crosby, Ovechkin, Mckinnon ect. you can't really tell who will succeed.

The NFL, for years top 5 picks were almost a curse with the insane contracts. Also one player can't really turn a team around unless it's a top QB.

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 07:20 PM
Howcome we never hear teams from the NFL, MLB, or NHL "tanking"? something is seriously wrong with the NBA, but I don't think the lottery has to do with it. Imagine if they just went with the worst records as getting the first pick? we would have even more teams tanking

bcuzthey rebuild, Cubs did a terrific job of rebuilding since hiring Epstein and are now ready to make their push and The Colts went worst to first (in the division)

jmartin80
12-11-2014, 08:04 PM
so how does that ruin basketball for you? go watch the western teams if you want good basketball.

ummmmm...... because my favorite team is in the East?

The only ones who think it is fair for 1 team to get 3 out of 4 #1 picks are Cavs fans and Lebron fans.

Kyben36
12-11-2014, 08:22 PM
No, you misunderstand.

The draft lottery must be absolute: Every team 1-30 gets a pick. There is a randon UN-weighted drawing, with every team getting an equal chance regardless of record.

So in other words San Antonio and Miami would've had the same odds in the lottery this year as the 76'rs and Celtics.

That's it. That's the only fix. Every team/owner advocating for something different than that is a joke as far as I'm concerned.

I totatlly diagree with this idea,

I think the draft lotery is not the problem, in fact, it prevents teams like the 76ers from getting guarenteed best tallent year in and year out, and it prevents teams like the Cavs or spurs, the best teams, to get even more talent, its a way to keep the competition closer, and it works well,

there is a reason the nba does a lotery, because unlike other sports, the nba is very top heavy, and there is a reason no team does a full lottery like u suggested, its just absurd , giving the nba champion a chance to get lebron james in 2003 would have been rediculous.

the only thing that IMO, needs to change, is how the draft is selected, i think there is alot of rumor of nba coluding on who gets them, it needs to be an open door policy.

JV35
12-11-2014, 08:28 PM
I'm in favor of the "Wheel":

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel/

5ass
12-11-2014, 08:31 PM
So then why do you have a problem with the Sixers??? We are actually rebuilding correctly, teams like Detroit and Orlando are the teams that are poorly managed and signing guys like Jodie Meeks, Ben Gordon, and Channing Frye to ridiculous contracts. So would you rather the Sixers signed those players and wasted our cap space and player development just so we wouldn't be labeled as tankers? I just don't get all the Sixers hate.

As for the OP ripping Hinkie...name one poor decision he has made?

1.) Traded Jrue Holiday for Nerlens Noel (arguably the best player in the draft) and what later turned out to be Dario Saric.
2.) Drafted MCW 11th after trading Jrue Holiday
3.) Drafting Joel Embiid (arguably the best player in the draft)
4.) Acquiring Tony Wroten for a 2nd round pick and trade exception.
5.) Acquiring numerous 2nd round picks in various years for mediocre vets or cap space.
6.) Selecting KJ McDaniels in the 2nd round
7.) Signing Robert Covington from the D-League

I think he is doing a pretty damn good job. I think the Sixers can push 30+ wins as early as next year, and maybe more depending on who we sign/draft/or trade.

Please explain how Frye and Gordon have ridiculous contracts. You do understand that they're actually helping in the young player's development? Besides the fact that they're a vet presence they provide a lot to this team. We're shooting so much better from 3, I think we're top 5. we were one of the worst last year. We needed that to help us grow, oladipo and Payton take it to the hoop. Frye is doing a great job stretching the floor. Gordon is instant offense, we need those two players to help us close out games sometimes, or give us a boost when we're having a bad stretch. Your logic is way too simplistic here. The Orlando magic are not a poorly managed team, you are dead wrong about that. Hennigan jumped on Frye knowing the cap is going to go up, and his contract goes down. By next year, he could be earning basically the MLE. Gordon is reviving his career with the magic.
If you think rebuilding the sixers' way is rebuilding "correctly" that's just your opinion. Theres more than one way to go about building a team. We'll see who ends up doing what in the next few years.

JEDean89
12-11-2014, 08:31 PM
the wheel is horrible, they had the right idea by unweighting the lottery, i think they went too far with it though. Teams will not tank like the 76ers are for a 20% chance at the #1 pick.

crewfan13
12-11-2014, 09:52 PM
Teams would still tank because they realize that the only way to improve, especially for small to mid market teams is to find a stud in the draft. Look at the historically great franchises like Boston, New York and LA. They aren't getting free agents right now because they stink. They likely won't get free agents unless they have an obnoxious amount of cap space that would allow 2-3 free agents who want to play together to join up.

In my opinion, fixing the draft system by itself will not eliminate tanking. You'll still have teams trading players for picks and all that. Even in the wheel format, you're still not really fixing anything. You're simply making the weak weaker

In order to stop tanking, you need to change the whole system. The soft cap and all the cap rules are more to blame than the draft lottery in my opinion. If you eliminate maximum contracts, the top players contracts will naturally rise. When Lebron becomes a free agent, every will no longer be offering the same contract. Some bad team will/can offer much more than teams already loaded with talent. By doing this, you would make it much more difficult to build super teams. Right now guys are encouraged to take home town discounts by signing just under the max type deals. In the grand scheme of things, that couple million isn't a huge deal. Now make them decide between a couple million in a pay cut per year, and its a different story.

By eliminating the soft cap and exception rules, you could also make it more difficult to build a super team. Why reward a team who spends one offseason signing all the top tier free agents with cap exceptions to build an even better team? Either remove all cap restrictions and let teams spend into oblivion, while also making rookies/young players controllable/affordable for longer periods of time (the baseball method) or make a hard cap, and if you can't sign your own guy coming off a rookie deal to an extension because you're too close to the cap, then its your fault for not planning (the football method).

I know the league would never go for this. Capping the max players and providing those exceptions makes the middle tier type players a ton of money and increases the median salary by quite a bit. So the players and their agents would never go for it. Non or partially guaranteed contracts would be another great addition, but again, the players would never go for that. But changing the draft system isn't how you change the tanking problem in the league. You do it by allowing teams to offer crazy packages to the highest end free agents and making it almost impossible to build your team on 3 max level players.

Synyster89
12-11-2014, 10:02 PM
Please explain how Frye and Gordon have ridiculous contracts. You do understand that they're actually helping in the young player's development? Besides the fact that they're a vet presence they provide a lot to this team. We're shooting so much better from 3, I think we're top 5. we were one of the worst last year. We needed that to help us grow, oladipo and Payton take it to the hoop. Frye is doing a great job stretching the floor. Gordon is instant offense, we need those two players to help us close out games sometimes, or give us a boost when we're having a bad stretch. Your logic is way too simplistic here. The Orlando magic are not a poorly managed team, you are dead wrong about that. Hennigan jumped on Frye knowing the cap is going to go up, and his contract goes down. By next year, he could be earning basically the MLE. Gordon is reviving his career with the magic.
If you think rebuilding the sixers' way is rebuilding "correctly" that's just your opinion. Theres more than one way to go about building a team. We'll see who ends up doing what in the next few years.

Most experts thought Ben Gordon would be lucky to sign for the vet minimum and got 2yrs/$9M for what...to be a chucker? If you want your young players learning from him, good luck. Giving Frye, who is already 31, a 4yr/$32M is wayyy to much for a role player on a rebuilding team, but at least he can play. He definitely won't be a $8M player for a majority of the deal. If you want Gordon and Frye eating into the minutes of your young core and slow their on court development that's fine with me. Keep tying up your cap into old vets :)

2-ONE-5
12-11-2014, 10:07 PM
Please explain how Frye and Gordon have ridiculous contracts. You do understand that they're actually helping in the young player's development? Besides the fact that they're a vet presence they provide a lot to this team. We're shooting so much better from 3, I think we're top 5. we were one of the worst last year. We needed that to help us grow, oladipo and Payton take it to the hoop. Frye is doing a great job stretching the floor. Gordon is instant offense, we need those two players to help us close out games sometimes, or give us a boost when we're having a bad stretch. Your logic is way too simplistic here. The Orlando magic are not a poorly managed team, you are dead wrong about that. Hennigan jumped on Frye knowing the cap is going to go up, and his contract goes down. By next year, he could be earning basically the MLE. Gordon is reviving his career with the magic.
If you think rebuilding the sixers' way is rebuilding "correctly" that's just your opinion. Theres more than one way to go about building a team. We'll see who ends up doing what in the next few years.

he is wrong about the Magic being poorly managed and i like the moves they have made since acquiring Vuc but to say Gordon is reviving himself scoring 7 pts a night while playing just 16 min is far fetched.

Vinny642
12-11-2014, 10:18 PM
I dont mind the lottery, it got us Davis

Synyster89
12-11-2014, 11:00 PM
he is wrong about the Magic being poorly managed and i like the moves they have made since acquiring Vuc but to say Gordon is reviving himself scoring 7 pts a night while playing just 16 min is far fetched.

I meant poorly managed with their FA signings given the current state of the team. I like most of their draft picks, but IMO Aaron Gordon was a reach and the Sixers hustled them with the draft day trade.

Shammyguy3
12-11-2014, 11:13 PM
The NBA Draft Lottery is flat out preventing the sport from ruining itself.


That's far more factual than this thread title. I agree with Jeffy though - the reason why the NBA is so different than other sports is what we need to first understand:
1) one player has a significantly greater impact than in MLB < NHL < NFL
2) there is no developmental league (Minor league baseball & Hockey, 3-4 years for every NFL-draft entry).


Those 2 things right there is what's most different with the NBA, by far my favorite sport league. The first one isn't a problem, it's simply a fact. The second one is a major hurdle that is extrapolated by a couple of things:
1) player growth takes longer in those other leagues 99% if the time
2) guaranteed money giving incentive to players for leaving college early

It would be in the better interest of the NBA as a whole to
1) increase the age limit for the league (whether that number should be 2 years removed from high school, or 20 years old; 3 years removed from high school, or 21 years old; whatever - doesn't matter).
2) give future employees (meaning high school graduates/dropouts, they're all the same once they hit the court) two legit options.

What should those legit options be, exactly? I propose both of the following:
Option #1 - go to college for a minimum of 2 years. Get an education (at least partial). Enjoy your youth and try to mature.
Option #2 - if college isn't for you, join the Developmental League. Get paid a locked in salary of $X,000,000 for 2 years. No fake classes, real life upfront money. Now, this options forces the players to take finance, business, and management classes. Some of those on economics of the world market, some of them on the NBA's market, and some of them on how to manage your own personal bank account. This option will increase the value of the NBADL, increase the product, and will give the league a step forward on having its own minor league system (comparable to the MLB's).



The end result will take a very long time. But, at some point these teams can learn how to scout better coming out of high school. The draft slots won't hold much value, like in the NFL where the 1st pick isn't too different from the 5th pick in every draft, and the 12th pick isn't too different from the 20th pick.


This is a system that can give the players money up front, an education up front (either in college or under the NBA's umbrella) and a chance for the league to gain money via the developmental league as well.

5ass
12-11-2014, 11:42 PM
Most experts thought Ben Gordon would be lucky to sign for the vet minimum and got 2yrs/$9M for what...to be a chucker? If you want your young players learning from him, good luck. Giving Frye, who is already 31, a 4yr/$32M is wayyy to much for a role player on a rebuilding team, but at least he can play. He definitely won't be a $8M player for a majority of the deal. If you want Gordon and Frye eating into the minutes of your young core and slow their on court development that's fine with me. Keep tying up your cap into old vets :)

Second year of Gordon's contract is not guaranteed. His contract is not bad. How is he a chucker when he's shooting 46% from the field? Frye's contract is okay for a role player these days. Again, the cap is projected to go up. Gordon and Frye both provide a skill set that our young guys (so far) lack. They fill their roles well. Theres more t building a team than throwing out a bunch of young guys and hope they figure it out. You can help them get their faster.
Frye and Gordon make our young guys play better. That's great for their development/confidence. I trust JV and hennigan, they've done a great job developing oladipo, O'Quinn, Harris and vucevic. I think they're doing a great job with Payton and Gordon too.
Frye's contract is not going to be an issue, we have a lot of capspace. If we decide to trade him though, I don't think it will be a problem.

5ass
12-11-2014, 11:49 PM
he is wrong about the Magic being poorly managed and i like the moves they have made since acquiring Vuc but to say Gordon is reviving himself scoring 7 pts a night while playing just 16 min is far fetched.

Maybe revived is the wrong word to use. What I meant is that he's looking good. Last year he couldn't even get minutes, his career was looking over. Maybe resuscitated his career is a better choice of words. Who knows, if he keeps this up a contender might want to trade for him.

FlashBolt
12-11-2014, 11:56 PM
Just leave it the way it is. Honestly, this is great for teams who are small market and can't attract anyone.

Anthony Davis
John Wall
Kyrie Irving
Andrew Wiggins
LeBron
Griffin (good market but let's be honest, Clips were a non-attractive team)
Rose

I like it the way it is. If teams are tanking, well, it's a risk in itself. You can expect every single team to be playoff contenders. As much as we want the league to be competitive, some teams really need these draft picks.

benny01
12-12-2014, 02:19 AM
What Shammy said

I would also like to see the end of exemptions with just a hard cap. Then allow a heathly percentage of players contracts who have bird rights to be cap exempt

basketfan4life
12-12-2014, 05:24 AM
every lottery team should have the same chance at the lottery. No team in the league would pass a chance to play in the playoffs anyways. Playof teams pick like how they pick now.

PhillyFaninLA
12-12-2014, 08:41 AM
Howcome we never hear teams from the NFL, MLB, or NHL "tanking"? something is seriously wrong with the NBA, but I don't think the lottery has to do with it. Imagine if they just went with the worst records as getting the first pick? we would have even more teams tanking

MLB and NHL takes years for most players to make it the bigs....the NFL if you don't try and field and NFL talent level team, guys would get seriously hurt

thenaj17
12-12-2014, 09:25 AM
Last year's Spurs and Heat having the same odds as last year's 6ers, Bucks, Wolves, Cavs etc is ridiculous as well. Not fair at all to the non tanking teams

No clue what a correct solution would be but the NBA does need to find one

Easy solution i read somewhere (might be NBA blogtable last year) would be to have the lottery system stay in place but make it the average position over the past 3 years accumulative each time. So if you suck 3 years in a row more than anyone else i.e. least wins, you get the #1 pick and so on. Tie breakers can be however you like, division games/conference or whatever.

Nobody would tank full on for 3 seasons because crowds would dwindle beyond belief and GM's, coaches would be fired so can't risk that. 1 season they may be able to convince management to keep them but not 3 full seasons. It averages out nicely as at the moment some teams can miss 1 or 2 big stars for almost a whole season (if Durant/Westy hadn't come back - they'd have had a top 5 pick this year) and get a pick that is circumstantial rather than where their team is at long term. Could you imagine OKC having a top 5 pick to go with their current squad? The 3 season average would avoid any anomalies like that

If a team is great and then old players retire, (e.g. Duncan/Manu) in the current system the next season Spurs could get a near top pick and be relevant again very quickly. Whereas over 3 years, their average finishing position would only get them 1 year near top pick and 2 previous of 25-30 range so it would balance out in the late teens or whatever (only an example not my prediction of what will happen before y'all jump on this)

I just don't see a fault in this...debate?

2-ONE-5
12-12-2014, 09:51 AM
lotto is fine how it is, the 4 worst teams have the same odds to get the top pick i dont see an issue with that. Maybe if the Knicks and Lakers would stop tanking this wouldnt be an issue

2-ONE-5
12-12-2014, 09:54 AM
I meant poorly managed with their FA signings given the current state of the team. I like most of their draft picks, but IMO Aaron Gordon was a reach and the Sixers hustled them with the draft day trade.

Gordon was a bad move but i understand the reasoning behind Frye, they overpaid some but they had a reason for it and he doesnt take minutes away from anyone. Honestly we could use a guy like Frye in Philly instead of a guy like Boute who brings nothing to the table

TheIlladelph16
12-12-2014, 10:26 AM
Gordon was a bad move but i understand the reasoning behind Frye, they overpaid some but they had a reason for it and he doesnt take minutes away from anyone. Honestly we could use a guy like Frye in Philly instead of a guy like Boute who brings nothing to the table

Pretty sure Boute is only on the team because of his connection to Joel Embiid.

2-ONE-5
12-12-2014, 10:32 AM
i know he is but still i would rather have another vet that can actually help the team on the floor. It makes no difference in the end but i was using it as an example of the poster who questioning Frye to the Magic and impact on floor spacing

crewfan13
12-12-2014, 12:29 PM
The NBA Draft Lottery is flat out preventing the sport from ruining itself.


That's far more factual than this thread title. I agree with Jeffy though - the reason why the NBA is so different than other sports is what we need to first understand:
1) one player has a significantly greater impact than in MLB < NHL < NFL
2) there is no developmental league (Minor league baseball & Hockey, 3-4 years for every NFL-draft entry).


Those 2 things right there is what's most different with the NBA, by far my favorite sport league. The first one isn't a problem, it's simply a fact. The second one is a major hurdle that is extrapolated by a couple of things:
1) player growth takes longer in those other leagues 99% if the time
2) guaranteed money giving incentive to players for leaving college early

It would be in the better interest of the NBA as a whole to
1) increase the age limit for the league (whether that number should be 2 years removed from high school, or 20 years old; 3 years removed from high school, or 21 years old; whatever - doesn't matter).
2) give future employees (meaning high school graduates/dropouts, they're all the same once they hit the court) two legit options.

What should those legit options be, exactly? I propose both of the following:
Option #1 - go to college for a minimum of 2 years. Get an education (at least partial). Enjoy your youth and try to mature.
Option #2 - if college isn't for you, join the Developmental League. Get paid a locked in salary of $X,000,000 for 2 years. No fake classes, real life upfront money. Now, this options forces the players to take finance, business, and management classes. Some of those on economics of the world market, some of them on the NBA's market, and some of them on how to manage your own personal bank account. This option will increase the value of the NBADL, increase the product, and will give the league a step forward on having its own minor league system (comparable to the MLB's).



The end result will take a very long time. But, at some point these teams can learn how to scout better coming out of high school. The draft slots won't hold much value, like in the NFL where the 1st pick isn't too different from the 5th pick in every draft, and the 12th pick isn't too different from the 20th pick.


This is a system that can give the players money up front, an education up front (either in college or under the NBA's umbrella) and a chance for the league to gain money via the developmental league as well.

I like this idea a lot, but if the real problem is tanking, this would actually make tanking worse. As it stands right now, we don't know if Wiggins is the next Lebron or the next Darius Miles (or somewhere in between). Giving them more time to develop and seeing them play against professional talent in the minors at at least 2-3 years of college gives you a better idea of what these guys are going to be. Imagine Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant playing 3 years of college ball. It would have been even more evident that they would be a star at that point, so teams probably would tank more for one of those guys. Only time that helps is if a draft looks really weak.


every lottery team should have the same chance at the lottery. No team in the league would pass a chance to play in the playoffs anyways. Playof teams pick like how they pick now.

I would tend to disagree with that. If a team like Philly is willing to realistically sacrifice 3 years at least of fan support, you don't think a team would say, if we miss the playoffs, we get just as good of chance of getting Anthony Davis. And if we make the playoffs, we get to be swept out by one of the elite teams. Depending on the talent pool of the draft, I could absolutely see a team passing on one year of playoffs to potentially get that piece that makes them true contenders.


Easy solution i read somewhere (might be NBA blogtable last year) would be to have the lottery system stay in place but make it the average position over the past 3 years accumulative each time. So if you suck 3 years in a row more than anyone else i.e. least wins, you get the #1 pick and so on. Tie breakers can be however you like, division games/conference or whatever.

Nobody would tank full on for 3 seasons because crowds would dwindle beyond belief and GM's, coaches would be fired so can't risk that. 1 season they may be able to convince management to keep them but not 3 full seasons. It averages out nicely as at the moment some teams can miss 1 or 2 big stars for almost a whole season (if Durant/Westy hadn't come back - they'd have had a top 5 pick this year) and get a pick that is circumstantial rather than where their team is at long term. Could you imagine OKC having a top 5 pick to go with their current squad? The 3 season average would avoid any anomalies like that

If a team is great and then old players retire, (e.g. Duncan/Manu) in the current system the next season Spurs could get a near top pick and be relevant again very quickly. Whereas over 3 years, their average finishing position would only get them 1 year near top pick and 2 previous of 25-30 range so it would balance out in the late teens or whatever (only an example not my prediction of what will happen before y'all jump on this)

I just don't see a fault in this...debate?

This definitely hurts a team like San Antonio (although no one feels bad for them). If you're ravished by injuries or have a veteran team that mostly retires, you have to wait 3-4 years to get a good pick, and then another 3-4 years for those guys to actually develop.

While this system does take care of anomalies, are anomalies really the problem here? I don't think so.

There are two questions that are being asked around the league. Why do teams tank? What can we do to prevent it? The answers seem to be teams tank because they want high draft picks. And the answers being proposed are simply trying to make it harder for teams to get the top draft pick. I don't think those are the exact answers. I think the answer to why teams tank is because small to mid markets (ie the teams that aren't great free agent locations unless the team is good) view tanking and the draft as the only way they even have a chance to build a contender. Its not that they think tanking will guarantee them a championship. They understand how difficult it is to build a contender strictly through the draft, and tanking still requires luck. The problem is, there's no other viable way to get them a good team. So the answer to what can we do to get teams to stop tanking shouldn't be de-incentivize the draft, it should be create a system in which the small to mid markets can compete without having to tank.

Sssmush
12-12-2014, 07:11 PM
Just give the worst record the number one pick and so on. I think the draft lottery is a huge joke including Rose going to the Bulls with a 1.6% chance and especially the Cavs getting 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years. That is a joke and is ruining Basketball. Let them tank. But to keep giving good teams, who were on the verge of playoffs #1 picks is killing basketball.

I vehemently disagree. And I am actually quite amazed at the number of fans and media people (as well as those of the new Interent hybrid class , the blogging/forumming "Feedia" or "Fania" ) and even including freakin Magic JOHNSON, who are willing and able to accept the idea of NBA tanking, even as it becomes more and more obvious.

Let me tell you what I see: The current state of the NBA tanking is like the entire league is tanking to try and get lower revenues, and/or so the marginal "superstars" can relax more and make great shoe commercials.

It reminds me of a vintage Ripley's Believe It Or Not segment: "Teams in the Bengali cricket league actually TRY to lose because whoever loses the most gets the best new player prospects, and only two or three teams in the league are actually good enough to win." Believe it.... or NOT.

What a JOKE. This could eventually become worse than modern day NY "Professional Boxing," in other words a sport that only little kids are impressed by, where you go to the game and "oooh awwwww" and are impressed when the walk by because theyyre so tall, and woweee what a dunk, but everybody's tanking for a chance to get Jabari Wiggins Oladipo.

Absolutely LoL at EVERYBODY that thinks NBA tanking is acceptable or an efficient sensible way to balance the league. LoL at any GM who would do it, and LoL at the league if it can't fix this.

I will LoL all year till next summer when the 76'rs have a 2-80 record, LoL at the hype on draft day, LoL at how bad Wiggins is, and LoL at the start of next years season when the 76'rs probably start out 9-20 again. And LoL for the next decade as they start firing people and desperately trying to claw their way above 500.

Sssmush
12-12-2014, 07:32 PM
The cool thing is that as the NBA legalizes gambling in New Jersey, the real value for the clued-in sharpies will be in knowing which "tanking" teams will beat which other tanking teams.

i..e. Which teams are the most reliable tankers. For instance the 76'rs are batting a tremendous percentage this year, AND the showed they can control it: when faced with becoming the worst team ever in a win-loss category, for the second year in a row they were able to win a fairly tough game (this year beating Ricky Rubio and Wiggins to avoid the worst start of any franchise in NBA history, ever). This is actually quite an accomplishment for Philly if taken in its context and I agree with Stephen A. that those guys are really trying and (sorry I was, errrrr, coughing. Ahem. )

But yeah the point is, this where Vegas bookmakers will really be able to find value, maybe "inverse value" in games with these teams known to be tanking. Actually I'd be super interested to hear Nate Silver or Haralabos V. Weigh in on this topic.... Although playing these spreads might be so hot and lucrative right now that nobody's talkin

Sssmush
12-12-2014, 07:46 PM
LoL the Spurs are winning titles with a 40 year old Duncan, a second rounder Parker, a #15 Kawhi and Ginobili.

And Philly's only answer is to lose more games than anybody in history for the chance to draft some 18 year old who can leave after four years in free agency if he wants to.

LoL this will get worse and dont worry I will let you know about it. You wanna see some battery chucking? I got your batteries right here yo

5ass
12-12-2014, 08:54 PM
I meant poorly managed with their FA signings given the current state of the team. I like most of their draft picks, but IMO Aaron Gordon was a reach and the Sixers hustled them with the draft day trade.

The magic gave up an additional 2017 pick that very well could end up being a second round pick. Either way it won't be too valuable. Meanwhile, we secured our backcourt for the next 10+ years and got arguably the best guard in the draft. I'd do that trade again 10/10 times. Payton is a joy to watch and a joy to have as a teammate I'm sure. Gordon was a great pick. Hennigan played that draft perfectly getting these two players IMO. He picked the right combination. What would you have done differently?

jmartin80
12-12-2014, 10:04 PM
There has to be a solution, but I honestly have no clue what it would be.

For one team to get 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years in a game that only starts 5 players is unacceptable. It is unfair and stupid to the rest of the NBA. The Ball Drop lottery system is obviously not successful and it really leaves way to much control to the NBA.

The more super teams that are formed, the more tanking you will see. Because why make the first round playoffs to get destroyed by a "Super Team" when you can just lose out and possibly get a franchise changer. There is no incentive to make the playoffs with the way these teams (Especially Lebron and his collusion and manipulation with his last two teams in the East) are formed. Why try? I wouldn't.

Sssmush
12-12-2014, 11:12 PM
There has to be a solution, but I honestly have no clue what it would be.

For one team to get 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years in a game that only starts 5 players is unacceptable. It is unfair and stupid to the rest of the NBA. The Ball Drop lottery system is obviously not successful and it really leaves way to much control to the NBA.

The more super teams that are formed, the more tanking you will see. Because why make the first round playoffs to get destroyed by a "Super Team" when you can just lose out and possibly get a franchise changer. There is no incentive to make the playoffs with the way these teams (Especially Lebron and his collusion and manipulation with his last two teams in the East) are formed. Why try? I wouldn't.

How about this: How about teams try their best, play like true sportsman, like gentleman, in the face of whatever odds and difficulties the sport presents, and either triumph magnficently or fail with honor.

How about that? What the Spurs are doing puts the 76'rs to shame in an absolute sense.

2-ONE-5
12-13-2014, 02:39 PM
LoL the Spurs are winning titles with a 40 year old Duncan, a second rounder Parker, a #15 Kawhi and Ginobili.

And Philly's only answer is to lose more games than anybody in history for the chance to draft some 18 year old who can leave after four years in free agency if he wants to.

LoL this will get worse and dont worry I will let you know about it. You wanna see some battery chucking? I got your batteries right here yo

lol when did they get rid of restricted free agency?

2-ONE-5
12-13-2014, 02:42 PM
How about this: How about teams try their best, play like true sportsman, like gentleman, in the face of whatever odds and difficulties the sport presents, and either triumph magnficently or fail with honor.

How about that? What the Spurs are doing puts the 76'rs to shame in an absolute sense.

lol dude you cant be serious? the goal is to build a team that can win a title not put out a mediocre team full of players who try really hard. We arent getting participation trophies here

Celticsfan2007
12-13-2014, 02:49 PM
The easiest lottery fix is to give all 14 teams who miss the playoffs equal chance at winning the lottery. Every non playoff team would have a 7.14% chance at the #1 pick. It's really not that hard and I'm not sure why owners won't adopt this strategy.

Chronz
12-13-2014, 02:51 PM
How about this: How about teams try their best, play like true sportsman, like gentleman, in the face of whatever odds and difficulties the sport presents, and either triumph magnficently or fail with honor.

How about that? What the Spurs are doing puts the 76'rs to shame in an absolute sense.

Spurs pulled D-Rob in order to tank and get Duncan. Sixers just taking it to the level necessary these days because more teams have wisened up on how to rebuild

Synyster89
12-13-2014, 03:17 PM
The magic gave up an additional 2017 pick that very well could end up being a second round pick. Either way it won't be too valuable. Meanwhile, we secured our backcourt for the next 10+ years and got arguably the best guard in the draft. I'd do that trade again 10/10 times. Payton is a joy to watch and a joy to have as a teammate I'm sure. Gordon was a great pick. Hennigan played that draft perfectly getting these two players IMO. He picked the right combination. What would you have done differently?

The Sixers got the 1st they owed the Magic in 2017 & a 2015 2nd round pick for two spots in the draft when the Magic could have just stayed at 12 and likely got him. Gordon is a great athlete is so raw that he is far from being labeled a "great pick", but time will tell. Same thing applies for Payton, he has little offensive game and is TO prone. He is only shooting 37.7% from the field, 25% from three, and 46.8% FT...while averaging 6/4/3 with 2 TOs a game. Playing the draft perfectly is a huge stretch, considering he basically threw away draft picks to the Sixers. I actually hope both players work out for you, I actually root for the Magic because of Vuc.

In all your posts you just sound salty towards the Sixers for no reason. Could it be because you are worried we will be better than the Magic? Even as soon as next year? I mean seriously, we are barely the worst team in the league...yet get all the negative press.

Synyster89
12-13-2014, 03:20 PM
The easiest lottery fix is to give all 14 teams who miss the playoffs equal chance at winning the lottery. Every non playoff team would have a 7.14% chance at the #1 pick. It's really not that hard and I'm not sure why owners won't adopt this strategy.

But then wouldn't that create many 7-8 seeds that would try to "tank" and miss the playoffs to have a chance at the #1 pick, rather than get destroyed in the 1st round. The problem with the NBA isn't the lottery, it is that it is so start driven that one player can turn a perennial loser into a contender overnight.

2-ONE-5
12-13-2014, 03:33 PM
The easiest lottery fix is to give all 14 teams who miss the playoffs equal chance at winning the lottery. Every non playoff team would have a 7.14% chance at the #1 pick. It's really not that hard and I'm not sure why owners won't adopt this strategy.

bcuz the you get a team like OKC who misses out and gets the top pick while they have 2 top 10 players

2-ONE-5
12-13-2014, 03:34 PM
The Sixers got the 1st they owed the Magic in 2017 & a 2015 2nd round pick for two spots in the draft when the Magic could have just stayed at 12 and likely got him. Gordon is a great athlete is so raw that he is far from being labeled a "great pick", but time will tell. Same thing applies for Payton, he has little offensive game and is TO prone. He is only shooting 37.7% from the field, 25% from three, and 46.8% FT...while averaging 6/4/3 with 2 TOs a game. Playing the draft perfectly is a huge stretch, considering he basically threw away draft picks to the Sixers. I actually hope both players work out for you, I actually root for the Magic because of Vuc.

In all your posts you just sound salty towards the Sixers for no reason. Could it be because you are worried we will be better than the Magic? Even as soon as next year? I mean seriously, we are barely the worst team in the league...yet get all the negative press.

he's had a beef with the Sixers since the rebuild started.

5ass
12-13-2014, 03:42 PM
The Sixers got the 1st they owed the Magic in 2017 & a 2015 2nd round pick for two spots in the draft when the Magic could have just stayed at 12 and likely got him. Gordon is a great athlete is so raw that he is far from being labeled a "great pick", but time will tell. Same thing applies for Payton, he has little offensive game and is TO prone. He is only shooting 37.7% from the field, 25% from three, and 46.8% FT...while averaging 6/4/3 with 2 TOs a game. Playing the draft perfectly is a huge stretch, considering he basically threw away draft picks to the Sixers. I actually hope both players work out for you, I actually root for the Magic because of Vuc.

In all your posts you just sound salty towards the Sixers for no reason. Could it be because you are worried we will be better than the Magic? Even as soon as next year? I mean seriously, we are barely the worst team in the league...yet get all the negative press.

A PROTECTED 2017 pick. The 2nd round pick holds little value for us, we have a deep team already. Gordon was a great pick, ill take him over Exum any day. All of the rookies are raw, he's already learnt to play great defense. He has shown potential offensively. He'll show that he's worthy of his draft position.
Payton's stats dont reflect what he brings to this team. We dont run a PG dominant offense, and his shooting is bad, we know that, he knows that, that's why he doesn't shoot much. His turnover issue is nothing to worry about right now. He's a rookie. Again, he's a very good defender.

The second paragraph is straight up dumb. I did not bash the sixers, you're the one that mentioned the magic are poorly managed and I replied. If anything you're the one coming off as salty.

5ass
12-13-2014, 03:46 PM
he's had a beef with the Sixers since the rebuild started.

Because I criticize them? Lol you guys are too sensitive
The sixers these two seasons are really a joke and I dislike both the noel and embiid picks. Two injured big men with play styles that IMO wont work together anyway. I'm sure one of them will be very good though. These are the only things I've ever criticized them for. I've said a lot of good things, maybe its because of all these posters attacking the sixers that you've become so sensitive.

JWO35
12-13-2014, 03:53 PM
But then wouldn't that create many 7-8 seeds that would try to "tank" and miss the playoffs to have a chance at the #1 pick, rather than get destroyed in the 1st round. The problem with the NBA isn't the lottery, it is that it is so start driven that one player can turn a perennial loser into a contender overnight.
This
So why not let the worse teams have the Top Pick (worst team gets 1st pick, no lottery at all) to at least try to balance the league out. :shrug:
The NBA is probably the worst of all the 4 major sports when it comes to parity and I think it is largely due to a number of reasons that can be fixed by the draft(Draft Age & Lottery system).

Crunch Time
12-13-2014, 04:04 PM
There is a bigger problem here that is quietly being placed under the rug. We have to accept the fact that basketball is a sport where 1 or 2 superstars/allstars make a huge difference to the performance of a team. Even a team with only 7 or 8 "good players" will have a hard time against a team with 2 superstars.

But the fact is there are only a handful of such guys. In a given draft year, not even the top 5 picks are guaranteed to be such. And you're trying to spread the wealth to 30 teams?

People perhaps aren't mentioning it because of the shitstorm that will ensue afterwards, but the solution to this lack of parity is just flat out contraction. It's really unfortunate but 30 teams is simply too many for the lack of available game changers in the sport.

If you want you can make it similar to a European style where you'll have League A, B, C, and teams get promoted or demoted depending on performance.

PhillySportFan
12-13-2014, 04:40 PM
Don't people have anything better to talk about on the NBA forum?

This is ridiculous, how are people even hinting at everyone gets an equal chance at the number 1 pick more fair than the current system? That is laughable, this is the best system period. If you want to do it the NFL's way then you're just flat out guaranteed the pick then tanking would be even easier.

I watched what felt like many seasons of 8th playoff seed for the Sixers, every year was the same thing. They were around .500, they would lose in the first, or second round if they skated by the first round some how. Literally had no chance of ever winning anything with that team, sure you'd make the playoffs, but there would be practically no way to ever obtain a superstar or get one potentially out of the draft. There were high's and low's but you always knew there ceiling was the first round of the playoffs and that's it, there was nothing else, no hope, no nothing. This is the only choice to become relevant.

PhillySportFan
12-13-2014, 04:44 PM
There is a bigger problem here that is quietly being placed under the rug. We have to accept the fact that basketball is a sport where 1 or 2 superstars/allstars make a huge difference to the performance of a team. Even a team with only 7 or 8 "good players" will have a hard time against a team with 2 superstars.

But the fact is there are only a handful of such guys. In a given draft year, not even the top 5 picks are guaranteed to be such. And you're trying to spread the wealth to 30 teams?

People perhaps aren't mentioning it because of the shitstorm that will ensue afterwards, but the solution to this lack of parity is just flat out contraction. It's really unfortunate but 30 teams is simply too many for the lack of available game changers in the sport.

If you want you can make it similar to a European style where you'll have League A, B, C, and teams get promoted or demoted depending on performance.

I agree, it also doesn't help that superstars team up, it's lame and I miss the old school mentality, the Kobe mentality, I'm the only superstar on this team, go get your own. Nothing wrong with having good players with you but no one else who demands max level contracts and all that.

Seizabmc
12-13-2014, 07:17 PM
I think whoever gets to the ninth best team in there conference should have the best chance at a #1 pick and then the tenth best should get #2 pick and so on.

But not until next season.
Let the knicks finish there tank job first.
Top three pick yeah buddy!!!

Shammyguy3
12-13-2014, 07:59 PM
I think whoever gets to the ninth best team in there conference should have the best chance at a #1 pick and then the tenth best should get #2 pick and so on.

But not until next season.
Let the knicks finish there tank job first.
Top three pick yeah buddy!!!

So a team like the Pelicans this year will get a top prospect, but a team like the Jazz won't (at least based on odds)?


That's not a solution

2-ONE-5
12-13-2014, 08:08 PM
Because I criticize them? Lol you guys are too sensitive
The sixers these two seasons are really a joke and I dislike both the noel and embiid picks. Two injured big men with play styles that IMO wont work together anyway. I'm sure one of them will be very good though. These are the only things I've ever criticized them for. I've said a lot of good things, maybe its because of all these posters attacking the sixers that you've become so sensitive.

all offseason you were taken shots and left and right for some reason. at least your not ignorant about it ill give u that and it hasnt come up since the season started i dont think. you do overrate your own guys though

Sssmush
12-14-2014, 08:00 AM
Spurs pulled D-Rob in order to tank and get Duncan. Sixers just taking it to the level necessary these days because more teams have wisened up on how to rebuild


Let me give you the whole thing right here right now, the entire NBA situation summed up:

We live in an era of better, faster, more, etc etc etc. More more more, faster faster faster, the best in the world, the best of everything, everything needs to be at least 20% better than it was last year and it needs to get there 20% faster.

In the NBA, Kobe is really the guy who started all this. Kobe was the one who said "Nothing else excepts championships matters. We ONLY play for championships. Everyone else is just goofing around."

And so... billionaire owners + $2 billion dollar franchise valuations + giant egos etc etc etc... what do we come up with?

Exactly. Why even play the games if we aren't playing for a freakin championship. What does BASKETBALL, or EFFORT, or some stupid meaningless game in the middle of December in the middle of an 82 game NBA season even MATTER???

So, therefore, let's tank. Let's throw EVERY GAME so maybe, MAYBE, we might draft the next Jordan or Kobe. And if we don't, hey, we'll know after about ten games and then we'll just tank some more and try again next year. Rinse, tank, repeat.

There you go. That's where we are. And if the league doesn't tweak this, doesn't disentivize tanking, then this is just gonna get completely out of control. Really it's already there and it's been there for about a year. But the league's prestige is seriously, seriously affected by these kind of shenanigans, which reached a new zenith with Magic (who doesn't represent the Lakers, not for years)'s comments.


Silver.Must.Fix.

2-ONE-5
12-14-2014, 10:59 AM
its not that difficult to understand. you play to win a title and if you question that then you might wanna find a new hobby

5ass
12-14-2014, 11:20 AM
all offseason you were taken shots and left and right for some reason. at least your not ignorant about it ill give u that and it hasnt come up since the season started i dont think. you do overrate your own guys though

So I'm not allowed to express my opinion about it? At least I also give credit where its due. Hinkie has done some nice moves, but I just think he's treating this more like Vegas gambling than building a team. As for overrating the magic players, I'm sure I have my bias, like you do yours. I'm not sure we have one future superstar, but vucevic, Harris, Gordon, dipo, Payton, and Fournier all have star potential. That's just my opinion on that.

mightybosstone
12-14-2014, 12:02 PM
I'm not going to read through the ridiculously long post by the OP, who seriously needs to learn to edit his posts. Nor am I going to read through 10 pages of comments. But anyone who thinks tanking only happens in the NBA is being naive. Tanking absolutely happens in the NFL and MLB. Trust me. I'm an Astros fan and a Titans fan. I'm seeing it first hand right now.

If anything, the lottery makes it so that tanking doesn't necessarily benefit you all that much. Sure, if you have the worst record in the league, you're guaranteed a top 4 pick, but you're not guaranteed the No. 1 pick. I wish other sports did it that way.

As for the idea that every team should get the same chance at the top pick, that's completely asinine. OP is saying that a 60+ win Spurs team should have the same shot at an Anthony Davis or a Lebron James as a 15-win 76ers team. That's just insane. You could feasibly make the strong teams that much much stronger every year, and that's just completely unfair.

There is no fair way to avoid tanking in professional sports. It's going to happen no matter what you do. And it's not "ruining the sport" as OP is saying. So what if a team like Philly wants to tank? It doesn't really have any major affect whatsoever in the outcome of the season. The same teams will still contend every year and the same teams will still suck every year regardless of what a handful of squads do to tank for the top pick. It may have a slight effect on the seeds, but ultimately who gives a ****?

Cal827
12-14-2014, 12:09 PM
I'm not going to read through the ridiculously long post by the OP, who seriously needs to learn to edit his posts. Nor am I going to read through 10 pages of comments. But anyone who thinks tanking only happens in the NBA is being naive. Tanking absolutely happens in the NFL and MLB. Trust me. I'm an Astros fan and a Titans fan. I'm seeing it first hand right now.

If anything, the lottery makes it so that tanking doesn't necessarily benefit you all that much. Sure, if you have the worst record in the league, you're guaranteed a top 4 pick, but you're not guaranteed the No. 1 pick. I wish other sports did it that way.

As for the idea that every team should get the same chance at the top pick, that's completely asinine. OP is saying that a 60+ win Spurs team should have the same shot at an Anthony Davis or a Lebron James as a 15-win 76ers team. That's just insane. You could feasibly make the strong teams that much much stronger every year, and that's just completely unfair.

There is no fair way to avoid tanking in professional sports. It's going to happen no matter what you do. And it's not "ruining the sport" as OP is saying. So what if a team like Philly wants to tank? It doesn't really have any major affect whatsoever in the outcome of the season. The same teams will still contend every year and the same teams will still suck every year regardless of what a handful of squads do to tank for the top pick. It may have a slight effect on the seeds, but ultimately who gives a ****?


May GOD have mercy on your poor soul.

But pretty much this. If a team is gonna tank, they will have to deal with the repercussions of their respective fan base, if those picks or players on that team don't pan out or decide to bolt. Might as well leave it at that. Now the wheel is an interesting choice, but risky for the sense on the order of that. Lol imagine if the 1st pick in the first 5 years are for the following teams: Philly, Cleveland, San Antonio, OKC, Minnesota. Now for Philly it would be nice, and the Spurs too (as it'll be a time where they are likely falling), but the other 3 wouldn't need them (most likely) and would just be tacking on to another strong team.

The equal odds idea doesn't work either. Say a team wins 67+ games on the season and dominates the playoffs. It might not help the fans of teams that are rebuilding, if that Dominant team gets a pick in the top 5 (that they don't own from a trade, b/c of course, sometimes deals severely backfire lol), yet alone the 1st or second pick.

Sssmush
12-15-2014, 05:18 AM
its not that difficult to understand. you play to win a title and if you question that then you might wanna find a new hobby

See, the major part of the problem, besides what I just mentioned about owners suddenly believing that there's no reason to even play a season unless they're "playing for a championship" (and LoL, I mean the Philadelphia 76'rs has one championship TOTAL in its history, and many of these other "tanker teams" such as Utah have zero championships) is this idea of a single transcendent player who completely overshadows the game.

By the way Lebron is not really such a player. Great player, able to win a couple titles in Miami when paired with a couple other Hall of Famers (or maybe three, depending if you think Bosh or Ray Allen might get in, or both).

But really the guy teams think of is a Jordan, a Shaq, a Kobe, a Duncan, a Magic, a Bird. A player so overwhelmingly superior that (and everybody overlooks this) plugged into a great system inside of a winning tradition they will lead directly to an NBA dynasty of multiple titles and MVPs. And shoe contracts and league transforming publicity and TV ratings. Every team wants to be that "special" team with the one of a kind awesome player.

But hey, guess what, Jeannie Buss is right: such players are great largely because of their winning attitude and superior determination and willpower. They aren't just genetic freaks that can jump higher than everybody else (every year's draft seems to prove this again and again).

Also you can never be sure which guy will be "that" guy: Kobe was the 13th pick and traded for freakin Vlade; Kawhi was the #15 pick; Tony Parker a second rounder; Steve Nash was a 14th pick. I could go on and on. I could also mention all the Kwame Brown's and Greg Oden's and the handful of lottery picks every year who seem to wash into the D-League without anybody really noticing.

So... bottom line... do you wanna play basketball? Do you think you can field a team and compete, are you willing to roll the dice and see who you get in the draft?

Teams like the 76'rs are tanking, ruining the league, and getting almost nothing for it. Wiggins and Parker are just average young players, and I don't even remember who Philly draftted last year.

I can't believe that so many NBA fans are actually in this thread trying to make a case FOR teams tanking, seriously saying with a straight face that its the only way these teams can have a chance to compete.

Again, what I think is that even "if" these teams started trying to win games they'd still be losing, they'd still be missing the playoffs, but the fact they're trying to set records for how many games can be lost in a 1 season or 2 season span is just ridiculous and extremely damaging for the league.

2-ONE-5
12-15-2014, 09:49 AM
YOU PLAY TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.

christ dude do u wanna see your team as the 6th seed getting bounced in 5 games every season?

you keep knocking the Sixers like they didnt try to make moves to be a contender just 3 years ago and when it backfired this is what you do.

Andrew32
12-15-2014, 10:09 AM
How can they fix it?
Taking away the lottery would only makes thing worse.

Can't really stop teams from tanking on the low I would think.

Maybe take away a few crappy expansion teams so the talent across the league can consolidate alittle more?
I think the league may have expanded slightly faster then the talent base they had to work with.

crewfan13
12-15-2014, 03:14 PM
See, the major part of the problem, besides what I just mentioned about owners suddenly believing that there's no reason to even play a season unless they're "playing for a championship" (and LoL, I mean the Philadelphia 76'rs has one championship TOTAL in its history, and many of these other "tanker teams" such as Utah have zero championships) is this idea of a single transcendent player who completely overshadows the game.

By the way Lebron is not really such a player. Great player, able to win a couple titles in Miami when paired with a couple other Hall of Famers (or maybe three, depending if you think Bosh or Ray Allen might get in, or both).

But really the guy teams think of is a Jordan, a Shaq, a Kobe, a Duncan, a Magic, a Bird. A player so overwhelmingly superior that (and everybody overlooks this) plugged into a great system inside of a winning tradition they will lead directly to an NBA dynasty of multiple titles and MVPs. And shoe contracts and league transforming publicity and TV ratings. Every team wants to be that "special" team with the one of a kind awesome player.

But hey, guess what, Jeannie Buss is right: such players are great largely because of their winning attitude and superior determination and willpower. They aren't just genetic freaks that can jump higher than everybody else (every year's draft seems to prove this again and again).

Also you can never be sure which guy will be "that" guy: Kobe was the 13th pick and traded for freakin Vlade; Kawhi was the #15 pick; Tony Parker a second rounder; Steve Nash was a 14th pick. I could go on and on. I could also mention all the Kwame Brown's and Greg Oden's and the handful of lottery picks every year who seem to wash into the D-League without anybody really noticing.

So... bottom line... do you wanna play basketball? Do you think you can field a team and compete, are you willing to roll the dice and see who you get in the draft?

Teams like the 76'rs are tanking, ruining the league, and getting almost nothing for it. Wiggins and Parker are just average young players, and I don't even remember who Philly draftted last year.

I can't believe that so many NBA fans are actually in this thread trying to make a case FOR teams tanking, seriously saying with a straight face that its the only way these teams can have a chance to compete.

Again, what I think is that even "if" these teams started trying to win games they'd still be losing, they'd still be missing the playoffs, but the fact they're trying to set records for how many games can be lost in a 1 season or 2 season span is just ridiculous and extremely damaging for the league.

Go somewhere like ESPN and look at their list of the top 25 players in the league. Ignore the arguments of where guys should be ranked for a second, and accept that of those 25 guys, you're probably looking at the top 20 players in the league as it stands right now. Now look at how many of them were lottery picks. The vast majority of them were lottery picks. And the ones who aren't, usually weren't lotto picks because they were somewhat unknown. I know Kobe wasn't in the top 25 this year, but let's use some of the examples you used. Kobe was a somewhat unknown high school player coming out in a time before every came out straight from high school. He was a gamble pick at the time. Manu and Parker were foreign players in a time when foreign scouting was still sort of a crap shoot. And to be honest, there's still certain levels of foreign scouting that are a crap shoot. Look at the Bucks taking Giannis. He was basically playing in a low level high school league.

I did not look at the data from this year's top 25 list, but I did last year. I don't remember the exact results, and I think I actually even did the top 50 players. There was only a select few top 50 players who weren't lottery picks and weren't foreign, high upside gamble picks. And of top picks who were lotto picks, a good majority of those were top 5 picks as well. You're fooling yourself if you think signing mid tier free agents and banking on the 15th or so pick every year is a realistic way of building a champion.

mightybosstone
12-15-2014, 03:32 PM
See, the major part of the problem, besides what I just mentioned about owners suddenly believing that there's no reason to even play a season unless they're "playing for a championship" (and LoL, I mean the Philadelphia 76'rs has one championship TOTAL in its history, and many of these other "tanker teams" such as Utah have zero championships) is this idea of a single transcendent player who completely overshadows the game.

I read through some of the rest of the post, which I mostly disagreed with. But I only wanted to comment on this, because it's wrong. The 76ers won two titles in Philly and one before they moved to Philly when they were the Syracuse Nationals in the '50s.

If you're going to crap on a franchise, at least be accurate with your insults.

WSU Tony
12-15-2014, 03:57 PM
If the NBA were a place where small market teams felt they could build a team any other way (other than tanking) don't you think they'd opt for that route? The NBA rules basically allow for 5-8 super teams and "hold back" the rest of the league. It's good for ratings... and money.

Small market teams (since when is Philly a small market anything?) feel the ONLY way to build a decent team is to tanks. If they felt they had an alternative they would take the alternative.

Philly isn't a disgrace. Philly is the only small market team brave enough to stick their middle fingers to NBA league execs and say "F*uck it, you haven't left us with any other options so we have to do something extreme."

WSU Tony
12-15-2014, 04:00 PM
Let me give you the whole thing right here right now, the entire NBA situation summed up:

We live in an era of better, faster, more, etc etc etc. More more more, faster faster faster, the best in the world, the best of everything, everything needs to be at least 20% better than it was last year and it needs to get there 20% faster.

In the NBA, Kobe is really the guy who started all this. Kobe was the one who said "Nothing else excepts championships matters. We ONLY play for championships. Everyone else is just goofing around."

And so... billionaire owners + $2 billion dollar franchise valuations + giant egos etc etc etc... what do we come up with?

Exactly. Why even play the games if we aren't playing for a freakin championship. What does BASKETBALL, or EFFORT, or some stupid meaningless game in the middle of December in the middle of an 82 game NBA season even MATTER???

So, therefore, let's tank. Let's throw EVERY GAME so maybe, MAYBE, we might draft the next Jordan or Kobe. And if we don't, hey, we'll know after about ten games and then we'll just tank some more and try again next year. Rinse, tank, repeat.

There you go. That's where we are. And if the league doesn't tweak this, doesn't disentivize tanking, then this is just gonna get completely out of control. Really it's already there and it's been there for about a year. But the league's prestige is seriously, seriously affected by these kind of shenanigans, which reached a new zenith with Magic (who doesn't represent the Lakers, not for years)'s comments.


Silver.Must.Fix.

We agree something needs to change. I don't agree, however, that tanking teams need to be punished. Why not create a system which small market teams feel they have a chance to build without tanking? You will admit, I'm sure, that a team would rather build ANY OTHER way than tanking. Tanking is a last resort.

Rockice_8
12-15-2014, 04:04 PM
If you think these players aren't trying their hardest when they step on the floor and are trying to lose/tank then you never played a sport. These guys are just young players and overall fringe NBA talents. They are trying to win lets not confuse that with the front office not trying to acquire better talent.

2-ONE-5
12-15-2014, 05:18 PM
If the NBA were a place where small market teams felt they could build a team any other way (other than tanking) don't you think they'd opt for that route? The NBA rules basically allow for 5-8 super teams and "hold back" the rest of the league. It's good for ratings... and money.

Small market teams (since when is Philly a small market anything?) feel the ONLY way to build a decent team is to tanks. If they felt they had an alternative they would take the alternative.

Philly isn't a disgrace. Philly is the only small market team brave enough to stick their middle fingers to NBA league execs and say "F*uck it, you haven't left us with any other options so we have to do something extreme."

we're not a small market team and i think tahts why the backlash has been so bad

dalton749
12-15-2014, 05:49 PM
any one else feel like lottery picks arent used how the should be though
if you know youre going to suck, give this top 5 pick every touch, and minute he can handle
nobody likes to suck, give them time and a lot more of them would probably find their way
most of these young guys confidence is shot before they even get a chance

like derrick williams as an example
the guy was the second overall pick and only got 20 minutes a game on a team that only won 26 games anyway

crewfan13
12-15-2014, 06:30 PM
If the NBA were a place where small market teams felt they could build a team any other way (other than tanking) don't you think they'd opt for that route? The NBA rules basically allow for 5-8 super teams and "hold back" the rest of the league. It's good for ratings... and money.

Small market teams (since when is Philly a small market anything?) feel the ONLY way to build a decent team is to tanks. If they felt they had an alternative they would take the alternative.

Philly isn't a disgrace. Philly is the only small market team brave enough to stick their middle fingers to NBA league execs and say "F*uck it, you haven't left us with any other options so we have to do something extreme."

Exactly. I've argued this in the Bucks forum and plenty of places with friends. These teams are all employing plenty of advanced stats departments and are looking at everything from a statistical standpoint. I would think they could look back at draft history, and the history of teams tanking and realize tanking is actually a really poor way of developing a championship caliber team. But the problem is, trying to compete with a marginal roster by continuing to sign mid tier free agents and picking between pick 15-20 is an even worse way of building a roster.

I've seen it first hand. As a Bucks fan, once we disassembled our Big Three after the 2001 season, we spent the next 20 some years trying to put the pieces back together by signing mid tier free agents to upper tier contracts. We got a little unlucky with injuries to the closest things we've had to franchise players in Redd and Bogut, but otherwise, we were signing mediocre vets to big deals. The list goes on and on with guys like Anthony Mason, Joe Smith, Keith Van Horn, Bobby Simmons, Drew Gooden, and John Salmons, while recently reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic by trading some of those more recent bad contracts for guys like Corey Maggette, Stephen Jackson and Monta Ellis. That clearly didn't work, and the closest we got to doing anything was having a shot at a first round upset against the Hawks a few years back. Fans lost interest and weren't showing up for games, even when we were in the playoffs as an 8 seed. They just didn't care anymore about going .500 and getting destroyed in the first round of the playoffs. Now, some of the issues the Bucks had was about poor management decisions and some bad luck, but this is essentially what the "wheel" and balanced lottery people want teams to do. They want you to sign marginal free agents to big contracts so that instead of going 10-72 with a bunch of unpolished youth players, you can go 30-52 with a bunch of no upside vets. The fans will get sick of that after not too long either.

Like you said, the league shouldn't be looking for ways to slap teams in the hand for tanking, it should be looking for ways that teams can encourage teams to use alternative strategies to build a winner. And the way the league is set up right now, it doesn't encourage tanking. It encourages you to do whatever it takes to try to acquire 2 of the top 15-20 players or so in the league, because that's the only way good free agents will consider signing with you.

Sssmush
12-15-2014, 06:31 PM
YOU PLAY TO WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP.

christ dude do u wanna see your team as the 6th seed getting bounced in 5 games every season?

you keep knocking the Sixers like they didnt try to make moves to be a contender just 3 years ago and when it backfired this is what you do.


Oh, is that what the Sixers are doing? Playing to win a championship? Is that what they're doing?

Great. Keep it up. Do me a favor, let me know when Philly wins a championship.

And, uh, seriously... Getting in the playoffs and playing a series isn't any good, huh, is it? Being a 6th seed in the playoffs... Not worth it. Right?

I guess some owners/GMs don't believe in team basketball, not really... They figure it's a one man sport that revolves around marketing and that the league is corrupted to where referees will only give favorable playoff calls to the anointed "superstar" players that the NBA is displaying fortheir entertainment value. So again, if you can't have one of those guys (CP3? griffin? Kawhii? Love? Lebron? Davis? Wade? Melo? ) then why even playthe games.

Oh I think i get it... Believe me I think I understand what theyre saying.

Anyhooo... Be sure to let me know when philly is winning those championships yo

Puck017
12-15-2014, 06:41 PM
I don't see how the draft lottery is responsible for teams tanking. Teams tank because they can't compete for a championship. The NBA's real problem is that it doesn't have enough talent to provide enough parity, so all the mediocre teams eventually tank to try to get the next superstar so that they can compete. Teams like the 76ers have no other way to be contenders in the NBA's current model and I personally don't understand how people think the draft lottery is responsible. Personally I think the NBA could benefit from a model like the English Premier League. Most notably its relegation system and loaning system.

While it might seem counter intuitive this would also give the NBA an opportunity for expansion. The NBA could do away with the eastern and western conferences since there would be less teams competing for the playoffs in the top league/division. Basically the top x teams would get promoted from the secondary league to the main league while the bottom x teams get relegated to the secondary league every year. I have a feeling small market teams would lose a lot of their value if this were to happen so the owners would never allow it, but I'll continue to dream.

As a Bobcats/Hornets fan that has watched some horrible teams I think it would have been cool to see some of the better players on those horrible teams go on loan to to playoff contender for the rest of that season and get something like ca$h or draft pick(s) in return. Not to mention how much more awesome it would make the NBA playoffs and how many more actual contenders for the championship there could be.

Sssmush
12-15-2014, 06:47 PM
Exactly. I've argued this in the Bucks forum and plenty of places with friends. These teams are all employing plenty of advanced stats departments and are looking at everything from a statistical standpoint. I would think they could look back at draft history, and the history of teams tanking and realize tanking is actually a really poor way of developing a championship caliber team. But the problem is, trying to compete with a marginal roster by continuing to sign mid tier free agents and picking between pick 15-20 is an even worse way of building a roster.

I've seen it first hand. As a Bucks fan, once we disassembled our Big Three after the 2001 season, we spent the next 20 some years trying to put the pieces back together by signing mid tier free agents to upper tier contracts. We got a little unlucky with injuries to the closest things we've had to franchise players in Redd and Bogut, but otherwise, we were signing mediocre vets to big deals. The list goes on and on with guys like Anthony Mason, Joe Smith, Keith Van Horn, Bobby Simmons, Drew Gooden, and John Salmons, while recently reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic by trading some of those more recent bad contracts for guys like Corey Maggette, Stephen Jackson and Monta Ellis. That clearly didn't work, and the closest we got to doing anything was having a shot at a first round upset against the Hawks a few years back. Fans lost interest and weren't showing up for games, even when we were in the playoffs as an 8 seed. They just didn't care anymore about going .500 and getting destroyed in the first round of the playoffs. Now, some of the issues the Bucks had was about poor management decisions and some bad luck, but this is essentially what the "wheel" and balanced lottery people want teams to do. They want you to sign marginal free agents to big contracts so that instead of going 10-72 with a bunch of unpolished youth players, you can go 30-42 with a bunch of no upside vets. The fans will get sick of that after not too long either.

Like you said, the league shouldn't be looking for ways to slap teams in the hand for tanking, it should be looking for ways that teams can encourage teams to use alternative strategies to build a winner. And the way the league is set up right now, it doesn't encourage tanking. It encourages you to do whatever it takes to try to acquire 2 of the top 15-20 players or so in the league, because that's the only way good free agents will consider signing with you.


Dont slap hands, just un-weight the lottery. Equal shot for all non playoff teams.

Then you have to play the games.

If you suck, you have to face it. You have to say we lost, but we will do better.

You cant just say we're just as good but we're tanking. We didnt win because we didnt try, but we're actually competing for a title.

Nobody in the nba wants to admit they cant win. "Tanking" is like another way to give everybody a participation medal. Everybody is a winner, some are just tanking. "Special" NBA.

Fans shouldjust cheer for their teams to lose then. A reverse league. Low ball poker. Bet the don't.

And 100% of these GMs bossing around their stat departments and being all VIP schmoozing the owner in versace suits... All these guys are great GMs. Yaaaaay.

I guess you guys are right. I guess the NBA doesnt have a problem after all. :)

Crackadalic
12-15-2014, 06:49 PM
Oh, is that what the Sixers are doing? Playing to win a championship? Is that what they're doing?

Great. Keep it up. Do me a favor, let me know when Philly wins a championship.

And, uh, seriously... Getting in the playoffs and playing a series isn't any good, huh, is it? Being a 6th seed in the playoffs... Not worth it. Right?

I guess some owners/GMs don't believe in team basketball, not really... They figure it's a one man sport that revolves around marketing and that the league is corrupted to where referees will only give favorable playoff calls to the anointed "superstar" players that the NBA is displaying fortheir entertainment value. So again, if you can't have one of those guys (CP3? griffin? Kawhii? Love? Lebron? Davis? Wade? Melo? ) then why even playthe games.

Oh I think i get it... Believe me I think I understand what theyre saying.

Anyhooo... Be sure to let me know when philly is winning those championships yo

So tell me exactly how there going to win before?

They were a 2nd round knock out with the roster they had a few years back. They peaked already.

So you want them to be a playoff contender every year and no shot at a title?

It sucks and the system is broken in a way but its the absolute best way for thm to be good a few years later and be title contenders

OKC had to be bad a few years before they got to 50 plus wins every year.
They had Durant and could have made they playoffs and instead traded allen and lewis
They suck and got Westbrook and Ibaka
They suck again to get Harden
They suck one more year and then got to be title contenders.

You have to be really bad to be really good.

Sssmush
12-15-2014, 06:52 PM
I don't see how the draft lottery is responsible for teams tanking. Teams tank because they can't compete for a championship. The NBA's real problem is that it doesn't have enough talent to provide enough parity, so all the mediocre teams eventually tank to try to get the next superstar so that they can compete. Teams like the 76ers have no other way to be contenders in the NBA's current model and I personally don't understand how people think the draft lottery is responsible. Personally I think the NBA could benefit from a model like the English Premier League. Most notably its relegation system and loaning system.

While it might seem counter intuitive this would also give the NBA an opportunity for expansion. The NBA could do away with the eastern and western conferences since there would be less teams competing for the playoffs in the top league/division. Basically the top x teams would get promoted from the secondary league to the main league while the bottom x teams get relegated to the secondary league every year. I have a feeling small market teams would lose a lot of their value if this were to happen so the owners would never allow it, but I'll continue to dream.

As a Bobcats/Hornets fan that has watched some horrible teams I think it would have been cool to see some of the better players on those horrible teams go on loan to to playoff contender for the rest of that season and get something like ca$h or draft pick(s) in return. Not to mention how much more awesome it would make the NBA playoffs and how many more actual contenders for the championship there could be.

Yeah ur right they cant fo that because every team in a manchester or Real Madrid. Every team is worth two billion and competing for a championship. Otherwise heads will roll. So we dont even play the games, that wsy I dont get fired because we're tanking. *yaaaaaayyyy*

Sssmush
12-15-2014, 06:54 PM
So tell me exactly how there going to win before?

They were a 2nd round knock out with the roster they had a few years back. They peaked already.

So you want them to be a playoff contender every year and no shot at a title?

It sucks and the system is broken in a way but its the absolute best way for thm to be good a few years later and be title contenders

OKC had to be bad a few years before they got to 50 plus wins every year.
They had Durant and could have made they playoffs and instead traded allen and lewis
They suck and got Westbrook and Ibaka
They suck again to get Harden
They suck one more year and then got to be title contenders.

You have to be really bad to be really good.

Just un weight the lottery. End of story.

If you still want to intentionally set records for most games lost fine, go ahead. Just Do It.

Jamiecballer
12-15-2014, 07:09 PM
Tanking does not have to exist. Equal odds for all is the only solution. Everybody put your vaginas away and just work to get better. What a concept.

2-ONE-5
12-15-2014, 07:22 PM
Oh, is that what the Sixers are doing? Playing to win a championship? Is that what they're doing?

Great. Keep it up. Do me a favor, let me know when Philly wins a championship.

And, uh, seriously... Getting in the playoffs and playing a series isn't any good, huh, is it? Being a 6th seed in the playoffs... Not worth it. Right?

I guess some owners/GMs don't believe in team basketball, not really... They figure it's a one man sport that revolves around marketing and that the league is corrupted to where referees will only give favorable playoff calls to the anointed "superstar" players that the NBA is displaying fortheir entertainment value. So again, if you can't have one of those guys (CP3? griffin? Kawhii? Love? Lebron? Davis? Wade? Melo? ) then why even playthe games.

Oh I think i get it... Believe me I think I understand what theyre saying.

Anyhooo... Be sure to let me know when philly is winning those championships yo

lol you are seriously a ****ing idiot

jmartin80
12-15-2014, 07:27 PM
Everyone keeps talking about tanking as the primary concern for the lottery system, but everyone keeps bringing up how 1 player can change a franchise.

Then how is it good to give 1 franchise 3 #1 overall picks in 4 years? That creates a super team by itself and needs to be protected in some way. Talk about causing people to tank. I would rather get a chance at drafting a franchise player then get a lower seed and a first round exit in the playoffs.

Draft lottery is ruining Basketball.

mRc08
12-15-2014, 07:28 PM
Two solutions even tho I don't mind the current system. Maybe they are ludicrous

1. Eliminate the draft. Allow college players to sign out right with whatever team they want/offers them the most money. It would become a bidding war, and the team willing to offer the most and take the gamble gets rights to that player. Tax the amount signed and divide it up as team revenue.

2. Rank the draft order using some voting method. Writers perhaps?

Neither solution is perfect, but with so many of you blowing up about it maybe these ideas could work?

mRc08
12-15-2014, 07:31 PM
And my team revenue I ment to say league revenue. This would be much like the luxury tax. If you want to get your franchise outa a rut you gotta pay. All parties benefit. The rookies salary would count against the cap however, otherwise billion air owners like Cuban would just buy the whole draft class lol

Shammyguy3
12-15-2014, 07:43 PM
Two solutions even tho I don't mind the current system. Maybe they are ludicrous

1. Eliminate the draft. Allow college players to sign out right with whatever team they want/offers them the most money. It would become a bidding war, and the team willing to offer the most and take the gamble gets rights to that player. Tax the amount signed and divide it up as team revenue.

2. Rank the draft order using some voting method. Writers perhaps?

Neither solution is perfect, but with so many of you blowing up about it maybe these ideas could work?

First idea isn't the worst idea in the world, since it brings significant risk to teams trying to sign such players (imagine what teams would have signed Michael Beasley to). However, are you proposing that you can only sign 1 rookie? What about the 2nd round of the draft?

Also - how is this fair to the veterans in the league? They weren't able to sign for X dollars outright. I think the NBAPA would like it on the whole because their future players get more money, but not sure how easily it would pass over

Puck017
12-15-2014, 08:02 PM
First idea isn't the worst idea in the world, since it brings significant risk to teams trying to sign such players (imagine what teams would have signed Michael Beasley to). However, are you proposing that you can only sign 1 rookie? What about the 2nd round of the draft?

Also - how is this fair to the veterans in the league? They weren't able to sign for X dollars outright. I think the NBAPA would like it on the whole because their future players get more money, but not sure how easily it would pass over

All you need is a secondary *rookie* salary cap that limits it so only a certain amount of cap $pace can be allocated to rookie contracts.

Shammyguy3
12-15-2014, 08:10 PM
All you need is a secondary *rookie* salary cap that limits it so only a certain amount of cap $pace can be allocated to rookie contracts.

At this point though, big markets come into play. If both Utah and LA have enough cap space to offer that max, who do you think the top prospects are going to pick?


We'll run into more problems with this

Puck017
12-15-2014, 08:32 PM
At this point though, big markets come into play. If both Utah and LA have enough cap space to offer that max, who do you think the top prospects are going to pick?


We'll run into more problems with this

I have to disagree with that too. So the guy this hypothetical year chooses the Lakers and he was very good and very costly hence the Lakers will have difficulties matching other teams offers to rookies until this player comes off the books.

Even if some prospects take less money to go to contenders or big markets it would enable teams to go after better prospects in the future. There would only be so much money in the league that would go towards rookies and I think most people would follow the money on their first contract.

The one main problem with this idea and the reason I don't particularly like is is the the big market teams would need to bother themselves with rookies because they can attract veterans more easily then just zero in on their next franchise player and just throw their entire rookie salary cap at them. Then again some people (me included) would probably enjoy watching that blowup in those teams faces when those players bust.

There is many different ways you could do something like this to. It could be made to have a give and take relationship with the soft cap. So when teams go over the soft cap is affects their rookie salary cap figure in some way.

I do agree with you that there is most likely some fatal flaw for why this won't work, I just think you're doing a terrible job trying to figure out what it is. I foresee the greatest obstacle for something like this being the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The draft works brilliantly for these leagues and provides all teams with prospects they could build a championship contender around even if poor management, injuries, or a lack of a salary cap trips these teams up along the way. The problem with the NBA is it doesn't have this luxury, teams can go 20 or more years without ever drafting a superstar that would allow them an opportunity to build a team that can contend for a championship.

Shammyguy3
12-15-2014, 10:48 PM
I have to disagree with that too. So the guy this hypothetical year chooses the Lakers and he was very good and very costly hence the Lakers will have difficulties matching other teams offers to rookies until this player comes off the books.

What if the Lakers get Anthony Davis the first year they had this rule... they couldn't care less if they couldn't match the following year's draft rookie class because they got a once in a decade type player.


Even if some prospects take less money to go to contenders or big markets it would enable teams to go after better prospects in the future. There would only be so much money in the league that would go towards rookies and I think most people would follow the money on their first contract.

Marketing factors in tenfold as well. Anthony Davis in LA instead of New Orleans, John Wall in New York instead of Washington.... etc etc

It's a bad idea


The one main problem with this idea and the reason I don't particularly like is is the the big market teams would need to bother themselves with rookies because they can attract veterans more easily then just zero in on their next franchise player and just throw their entire rookie salary cap at them. Then again some people (me included) would probably enjoy watching that blowup in those teams faces when those players bust.

Would New York want to bother with veterans as much if they had the chance at Anthony Davis, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, etc? They'd throw money at those guys over veterans.


There is many different ways you could do something like this to. It could be made to have a give and take relationship with the soft cap. So when teams go over the soft cap is affects their rookie salary cap figure in some way.

don't see it working nor do i like it


I do agree with you that there is most likely some fatal flaw for why this won't work, I just think you're doing a terrible job trying to figure out what it is. I foresee the greatest obstacle for something like this being the NFL, MLB, and NHL. The draft works brilliantly for these leagues and provides all teams with prospects they could build a championship contender around even if poor management, injuries, or a lack of a salary cap trips these teams up along the way. The problem with the NBA is it doesn't have this luxury, teams can go 20 or more years without ever drafting a superstar that would allow them an opportunity to build a team that can contend for a championship.

There's a **** ton of flaws in this, not a single flaw. I think you're overlooking all of those.

The reason why the NBA is not the NFL/MLB/NHL is because they don't have a minor league system (3-4 years for every NFL player entering the draft, MLB and NHL have the minors) and because a single player changes the fortune of a team from a borderline playoff team to a contender. You don't have that in other sports.

And that's why this rookie free agent idea is bad, because nobody would go to Minnesota, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cleveland, **** half the league if they had a choice between marketability in a dozen teams in the league

Crunch Time
12-16-2014, 12:29 AM
lil smushie's 12 page diarrhoea here is actually directed to the laker fans who are screaming to tank because otherwise this team is going nowhere winning some games and giving the lottery pick to phoenix

Sssmush
12-16-2014, 08:19 AM
Two solutions even tho I don't mind the current system. Maybe they are ludicrous

1. Eliminate the draft. Allow college players to sign out right with whatever team they want/offers them the most money. It would become a bidding war, and the team willing to offer the most and take the gamble gets rights to that player. Tax the amount signed and divide it up as team revenue.

2. Rank the draft order using some voting method. Writers perhaps?

Neither solution is perfect, but with so many of you blowing up about it maybe these ideas could work?

This opens up some interesting trains of thought.

I do agree with some other posters objections though, that if (IF) the object of the system is to maintain competitive balance, then total unregulation would probably overly favor super-attractive destinations. This would be great if we were trying to build super teams in the most attractive markets, but I guess the goal is to build mediocre teams in Utah and Minnesota or whatever. So, even though the risk factors, especially on the players side when they have to choose a landing spot for say 4+ years and consider roster and minutes, and teams can only play 5 starters etc, + other rules that could be added, the fact is the cream of the cream would go to NY or LA frequently (but of course its the freedom haters hate, not the cities. Miami was hated becsuse It was chosen by big 3).

A reverse draft of some kind might be possible... Where a coveted player could be pulled into a single player lottery of some kind if something got out of balance somehow... I mean this makes absolutely no sense to me but there might be some kind of team to team taking of players or something. Somehow.

Honestly though I think that players are not that far distanced from one another that any reasonable group can compete if it really tries. Its not like one player is 8 feet tall or is twice as fast and everybody else has no chance. And bball was supposed to be about being a team game. Thst was the secret weapon thst great coaches down to Phil and Popvivch have used to win multiple titles constantly---team work.

Even Miami was 2-2 in Finals and if they were in the West they mightve only made one Finals in that span. So lets not forget this is bball not tennis.

mightybosstone
12-16-2014, 10:14 AM
Honestly, I think the current system is about as good as it could possibly be. There is literally ZERO way to have a draft lottery and for it to be 100% fair. But the idea that the team with the best record in the league should have the same chance to get the top pick as the team with the worst team in the league is completely asinine. At least the current system makes it so the team that ends up with the worst record isn't a lock to get the top pick and all teams within the lottery have a shot to get a top 3 pick.

The only thing they could do to maybe improve it slightly is to redistribute the odds so that the worst teams in the league are less likely to earn a top pick and teams at the bottom of the lottery are more likely to receive one. Maybe something like this:

14: 1%
13: 2%
12: 3%
11: 4%
10: 5%
9: 6%
8: 7%
7: 8%
6: 9%
5: 11%
4: 11%
3: 11%
2: 11%
1: 11%

I'd be fine with some kind of system like this. At least this way, there's no benefit to having the worst record in the league versus having the 5th worst record in the league and teams that finish 9th or 10th in the lottery still have a really solid shot. But I am NOT for allowing teams outside of the lottery to have a shot at a top 3 pick. Because one player can swing an entire generation of NBA basketball, and if that player fell into the hands of an already great basketball team, it could create an unstoppable dynasty.

Sssmush
12-16-2014, 01:40 PM
Honestly, I think the current system is about as good as it could possibly be. There is literally ZERO way to have a draft lottery and for it to be 100% fair. But the idea that the team with the best record in the league should have the same chance to get the top pick as the team with the worst team in the league is completely asinine. At least the current system makes it so the team that ends up with the worst record isn't a lock to get the top pick and all teams within the lottery have a shot to get a top 3 pick.

The only thing they could do to maybe improve it slightly is to redistribute the odds so that the worst teams in the league are less likely to earn a top pick and teams at the bottom of the lottery are more likely to receive one. Maybe something like this:

14: 1%
13: 2%
12: 3%
11: 4%
10: 5%
9: 6%
8: 7%
7: 8%
6: 9%
5: 11%
4: 11%
3: 11%
2: 11%
1: 11%

I'd be fine with some kind of system like this. At least this way, there's no benefit to having the worst record in the league versus having the 5th worst record in the league and teams that finish 9th or 10th in the lottery still have a really solid shot. But I am NOT for allowing teams outside of the lottery to have a shot at a top 3 pick. Because one player can swing an entire generation of NBA basketball, and if that player fell into the hands of an already great basketball team, it could create an unstoppable dynasty.

I'm sorry to say youre just wrong about this. The tanking going on now is an absolute travesty for the league, and there's no way to stop it unless you take away the incentive. Having an un-weighted lottery for the nonplayoff teams and the playoff teams picking in order of post season finish looks like the best way to put an end to this idiocy. Actually the weigting you proposeisa step in the right direction but why not just go all the wsy and make an honest league out if it.

Honestly, the 1 in 15 times 1/x times 1/x chance that a Miami or OKC will miss the playoffs and wind up with the next Jordan is not worth making the league a complete joke. And even IF that occurs and lets say a better version of Wiggins is added to westbrook-durant, that is still a huge draw that gets huge TV ratings and people desperately want to see. AND ither teams can still compete because bball is ultimately a team game.

Seriously I cant believe people are actually saying that tanking is acceptable or even positive. Weird.

At the very least the league should start paying journalists to change the narrative and stop openly tsljing about tanking, or find a credible way to hide it so social media doesnt make the league look ridiculous. For instance if Philly goes 2-80 this year no journalist should openly say they are "tanking" (because that is a kind of game throwing or cheating) but rather we should all just play up how flat out bad the team is and have interviews on espn every night with the coach and GM with the storyline "worst team ever" etc. i mean to protectthe league's integrity espn gotta do its part.

For instance nobody is saying the Jets are "tanking" this year are they.

2-ONE-5
12-16-2014, 02:23 PM
you are serious clueless. Outside of the Sixers who is really tanking?

crewfan13
12-16-2014, 03:04 PM
It just blows my mind that when talking about tanking that all people focus on is the draft. Its been proven time and time again that tanking and building through the draft is not a great strategy. It worked out for a handful of teams, but there's plenty of teams who've been picking relatively high in the lottery for a long time and haven't done anything. I don't mean to disparage fan bases, because as a Bucks fan I'm in a similar boat. Minn hasn't made the playoffs in 10 years and Sacremento hasn't made it in 8. That's a lot of lottery picks over that span, and realistically, Kevin Love and Boogie Cousins are really the only really good players to come out of their picks in the last few years (yes we can argue some other guys, but realistically, they haven't gotten great talent). Tanking rarely works, yet teams are doing it. So why aren't we looking at that as the problem.

The problem clearly is that there's really no other way to truly compete in the NBA unless you have a top 10-15 player. Maybe you can get by with a few guys rated in the 20s, but that's becoming increasingly rare too. The problem is that small to mid market teams realize the only way they can get one of those types of players is to draft them. With maximum salary restrictions, everyone offers the best free agents (or the potential franchise changers) the same deal. Let's say Aaron Rodgers, JJ Watt or whoever you want to say is the best player in football were to become an unrestricted FA right now. They wouldn't have a maximum contract, if a team wanted one of those guys bad enough, they could offer more than anyone else. Unless you already have that guy on your team, that's not true in the NBA. Baseball has the most interesting free agency of all. Jon Lester recently signed with the Cubs, do you think the offer he had from the Cubs was identical to the Red Sox, Giants and whoever else was in on him? Probably not. They lured him by offering him more money and then pitching their situation as a secondary reason to sign.

If you truly want to stop tanking, you have to let the basketball be a free market to all players. The world is such a what have you done for me lately world. If you give owners the opportunity to throw a crap ton of money at a big name free agent who might change the team's luck, or suck for 5 years and build through the draft, basically all of them choose the win now option 1. But those small to mid market teams don't view that as a viable option. No offense to Philly, and I'm sure its a great city, but what NBA free agent is going to sign up to play for a relatively talentless Philly roster when they have the same dollar offer to go play alongside two other superstars in a city like Miami or LA? No one will and owners realize this, that's why they allow taking the huge gamble to tank.

In my mind, if the NBA truly wanted to stop tanking, you have two true options. First off, you have to eliminate maximum contracts in both situations. Then, you either have to put a hard cap in place, or take away the salary cap all together, but make young players more controllable (on more affordable rookie deals) and tax the crap out of the highest spenders. Both of those options are better than the current option, but no one in the league would agree to it. In the current NBA system, the soft cap and exceptions make too much money for those mid to lower level free agents, and owners are making too much money by not having to pay the best players their true worth. The only people who are "hurt" by the current system is the top earners and those are the guys who are making a killing in endorsements anyhow, so they aren't going to throw too big of fit.

mightybosstone
12-16-2014, 06:28 PM
I'm sorry to say youre just wrong about this.
No I'm not. And the NBA (a multibillion dollar annual industry) agrees with me. I'll take their side over yours.


The tanking going on now is an absolute travesty for the league, and there's no way to stop it unless you take away the incentive. Having an un-weighted lottery for the nonplayoff teams and the playoff teams picking in order of post season finish looks like the best way to put an end to this idiocy. Actually the weigting you proposeisa step in the right direction but why not just go all the wsy and make an honest league out if it.
So a terrible team in a small market that is just terrible and isn't tanking at all should have exactly the same chance of winning the lottery as a huge market team stacked with superstars coming off a 60+ win season? That's idiotic. That would do far, far more to ruin the league than tanking ever would. Your logic is completely flawed.


Honestly, the 1 in 15 times 1/x times 1/x chance that a Miami or OKC will miss the playoffs and wind up with the next Jordan is not worth making the league a complete joke. And even IF that occurs and lets say a better version of Wiggins is added to westbrook-durant, that is still a huge draw that gets huge TV ratings and people desperately want to see. AND ither teams can still compete because bball is ultimately a team game.
What in the hell are you talking about? I don't follow what you're trying to suggest. Without posting a novel, how about explaining your plan in about 100 words or less so that people will actually read it?


Seriously I cant believe people are actually saying that tanking is acceptable or even positive. Weird.
The problem with your logic is that you're assuming tanking has some kind of legitimate impact on the league. Does it really? Will Philly's tanking have an impact on who plays in the Finals? No. Not likely. The same teams are still going to be in the playoffs and the same teams will still make deep playoff runs regardless. Who gives a **** if the teams that play Philly more often have that slight advantage?

Even if we assume that tanking somehow made the difference between a team making the playoffs and missing out as the 9th best team, that still wouldn't make much of an impact. In the entire history of the league, an 8th seed has made the NBA finals one time. And that team didn't win the title, so that's a moot point.


At the very least the league should start paying journalists to change the narrative and stop openly tsljing about tanking, or find a credible way to hide it so social media doesnt make the league look ridiculous. For instance if Philly goes 2-80 this year no journalist should openly say they are "tanking" (because that is a kind of game throwing or cheating) but rather we should all just play up how flat out bad the team is and have interviews on espn every night with the coach and GM with the storyline "worst team ever" etc. i mean to protectthe league's integrity espn gotta do its part.
Seriously.... What the hell are you talking about? You sound like a rambling fool. As a journalist, I can tell you that no respectable journalist would take money to help spin something for a powerful organization. That's shameful and pathetic.

But what the hell does tanking have to do the media in the first place? We don't need journalists to tell us when a team is tanking. When teams trade away all their best players and overpay for veterans on short-term deals, the writing is on the freaking wall. I don't need ESPN to tell me when a team is tanking or not. I know it. But that's part of sports. Teams have been doing it for decades, and teams will continue doing it for decades. If you don't like it, stop watching sports. I promise you that the NBA gives zero ****s whether you watch their games or not.

Puck017
12-16-2014, 08:54 PM
What if the Lakers get Anthony Davis the first year they had this rule... they couldn't care less if they couldn't match the following year's draft rookie class because they got a once in a decade type player.
Kwame Brown and Michael Olowokandi say hi. This is why I mentioned the need to regulate the rookie salary available any give year to a team based on whether they're over the soft cap. The rookie salary cap would have to be a two headed monster. Not only would it regulate how much of a team's salary cap can go towards rookies it would also make so that they on have some given amount available in the following offseason. Figuring out the next part is where this starts have the same problem as the current draft lottery system. But if it was up to me I would give all non playoff teams the same base amount to spend on rookies in the following offseason and all the playoff teams a scaling lesser amounts to spend on the following offseason based on when they exited the playoffs. And to encourage prospects to sign with small markets and teams that suck I would allow those teams to rollover money from the previous year if they made offers and failed to sign a top rookies and would base that amount off how their record ranked the previous year. Just to add a little extra flavor to this idea I would add a one and done tournament for all the non-playoff teams after the regular season and would grant the winner extra rookie salary cap space for the following year.




Marketing factors in tenfold as well. Anthony Davis in LA instead of New Orleans, John Wall in New York instead of Washington.... etc etc

Still think most 18-21 year olds will mostly follow the biggest contract and not the biggest market, If the world thinks they're the next superstar you will likely be right in those cases, those player can still bust though.


It's a bad idea
As I said before you're probably right. I just think you lacked imagination on this idea.



Would New York want to bother with veterans as much if they had the chance at Anthony Davis, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin, etc? They'd throw money at those guys over veterans.

Don't think you're fully grasping the rookie salary cap in the same way I do.



don't see it working nor do i like it
It is a tough idea to swallow.




There's a **** ton of flaws in this, not a single flaw. I think you're overlooking all of those.

The reason why the NBA is not the NFL/MLB/NHL is because they don't have a minor league system (3-4 years for every NFL player entering the draft, MLB and NHL have the minors) and because a single player changes the fortune of a team from a borderline playoff team to a contender. You don't have that in other sports.

And that's why this rookie free agent idea is bad, because nobody would go to Minnesota, Utah, Portland, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Cleveland, **** half the league if they had a choice between marketability in a dozen teams in the league
Nevery meant to imply there was only one flaw with this. Just tired to come up with one of my own since I was giving you such a hard time on yours. I think the problems with this is not so much in the logistics its just everything else. I truly do believe many of these prospects will follow the money in their first contract and go to those small markets if that is where its at.

Puck017
12-16-2014, 09:02 PM
My solution for this thread is to have all the non-playoff teams play in a tournament for a 15th lottery pick. That should give everyone except 7th and 8th seeds incentive to try to win

Tony_Starks
12-16-2014, 09:26 PM
The whole notion that the only way to get better is to tank is so false. There's so many things that even small market teams can do to make a competitive team.

- scout and draft wisely
-make smart trades
-look for under the radar free agents, or players not being used properly
- hire a legitimate coach instead of someone with no experience just because its cheaper
- keep a actual core together for more than just 2 years.

Basically be a competent GM

koreancabbage
12-16-2014, 10:31 PM
you are serious clueless. Outside of the Sixers who is really tanking?

I will have to agree with you. Noone else is deliberately tanking.

Just bad GMs and management are ruining the league.

lakerfan85
12-16-2014, 11:13 PM
I think the lotto teams should have to play for the number one pick.. A one and done tournament after the NBA finals to determine who gets the first pick.. Teams with the better record would be the higher seeds and the top 2 teams would get a bye in the first round.. Set it up similar to the NCAA tourney and play at a neutral site with it going on from a Thursday to Sunday..

lakerfan85
12-16-2014, 11:15 PM
My solution for this thread is to have all the non-playoff teams play in a tournament for a 15th lottery pick. That should give everyone except 7th and 8th seeds incentive to try to win

Haha.. I totally didn't see your post but I think a tourney is the way to go as well..

tp13baby
12-16-2014, 11:25 PM
The bigger issue is GMs and owners knowing they continue to become more rich and okay with letting the team suck.

The NHL doesn't have this kind of issue even though they are a similar draft system. NHL needs teams to be competitive cause they need the money more to stay afloat.

NYKalltheway
12-17-2014, 02:11 AM
I agree with the OP but the solution is not to fix the draft with more draft. The whole system needs to be restarted. I've made several threads on this but due to cultural differences it's hard to send a clear message on what needs to be changed...

In brief, scrap the draft and the college system and add a 'farm' system where every team develops its own players in several locations across their state or the whole country(depending on budget) and open up the trade market to make $$$ the currency and not contract years, players or simple salary numbers.

HoopsMachine
12-17-2014, 03:53 AM
Two solutions even tho I don't mind the current system. Maybe they are ludicrous

1. Eliminate the draft. Allow college players to sign out right with whatever team they want/offers them the most money. It would become a bidding war, and the team willing to offer the most and take the gamble gets rights to that player. Tax the amount signed and divide it up as team revenue.

2. Rank the draft order using some voting method. Writers perhaps?

Neither solution is perfect, but with so many of you blowing up about it maybe these ideas could work?

First idea I have always liked, but to further expand I would set some parameters.

1. Set a temporary lowered salary cap on the top 10 NBA teams (by record) during this period for signing from the FA pool of rookie NBA prospects. If they exceed the set temporary salary cap they may only sign a rookie for the league minimum. If they are slightly below the salary cap it would be the difference plus the league minimum.

2. Bottom 20 Teams can sign rookies up to 4 years and 8 million per

3. Bottom 20 Teams can sign their rookies beyond the normally set salary cap but are still subject to luxury tax

4. Team may only sign a second rookie once the other 29 teams have either signed, waived the opportunity, or traded their first rookie player

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 04:05 AM
I think the lotto teams should have to play for the number one pick.. A one and done tournament after the NBA finals to determine who gets the first pick.. Teams with the better record would be the higher seeds and the top 2 teams would get a bye in the first round.. Set it up similar to the NCAA tourney and play at a neutral site with it going on from a Thursday to Sunday..



I agree with the OP but the solution is not to fix the draft with more draft. The whole system needs to be restarted. I've made several threads on this but due to cultural differences it's hard to send a clear message on what needs to be changed...

In brief, scrap the draft and the college system and add a 'farm' system where every team develops its own players in several locations across their state or the whole country(depending on budget) and open up the trade market to make $$$ the currency and not contract years, players or simple salary numbers.


These kind of ideas are really strong and I think if we all worked on it we could synthesize an excellent solution that would be great for the sport.

As you point out though, the reality is that the league owners seem very conservative (in the sense of unwilling to change or progress) and so even very minimal changes like slightly re-weighting the lottery starting several years in the future get voted down. Even though the NBA commissioner and league office were pushing very hard for it.

That recent vote, as much as anything, was evidence of widespread tanking. Some posters asked what other teams beside the Sixers are tanking and there is part of your answer, just look at everybody who voted down that measure.

I mean last year the Lakers finished with their historically worst season, but *surprise* the Utah Jazz still managed to finish one game behind them in the standings. Then once the standings were set they turned around and beat one or two really good teams to finish the season (San Antonio and Golden State or something if I remember correctly). Boston finished behind them, and seemed to hold out Rondo longer than necessary; even with some pretty decent young talent and very tradeable assets in an astoundingly weak Eastern Conference they still managed to finish a game behind the Lakers.

Actually what really got me thinking about this subject was this season when Westrbook and Durant were injured, and OKC was ten games out or ten games under 500 or whatever 20 games into the season and suddenly the narrative started to shift to whether they should just tank and try for the lottery this year.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 04:36 AM
No I'm not. And the NBA (a multibillion dollar annual industry) agrees with me. I'll take their side over yours.


So a terrible team in a small market that is just terrible and isn't tanking at all should have exactly the same chance of winning the lottery as a huge market team stacked with superstars coming off a 60+ win season? That's idiotic. That would do far, far more to ruin the league than tanking ever would. Your logic is completely flawed.


What in the hell are you talking about? I don't follow what you're trying to suggest. Without posting a novel, how about explaining your plan in about 100 words or less so that people will actually read it?


The problem with your logic is that you're assuming tanking has some kind of legitimate impact on the league. Does it really? Will Philly's tanking have an impact on who plays in the Finals? No. Not likely. The same teams are still going to be in the playoffs and the same teams will still make deep playoff runs regardless. Who gives a **** if the teams that play Philly more often have that slight advantage?

Even if we assume that tanking somehow made the difference between a team making the playoffs and missing out as the 9th best team, that still wouldn't make much of an impact. In the entire history of the league, an 8th seed has made the NBA finals one time. And that team didn't win the title, so that's a moot point.


Seriously.... What the hell are you talking about? You sound like a rambling fool. As a journalist, I can tell you that no respectable journalist would take money to help spin something for a powerful organization. That's shameful and pathetic.

But what the hell does tanking have to do the media in the first place? We don't need journalists to tell us when a team is tanking. When teams trade away all their best players and overpay for veterans on short-term deals, the writing is on the freaking wall. I don't need ESPN to tell me when a team is tanking or not. I know it. But that's part of sports. Teams have been doing it for decades, and teams will continue doing it for decades. If you don't like it, stop watching sports. I promise you that the NBA gives zero ****s whether you watch their games or not.

Yeah... I'm not really saying that (most) journalists would take dollars from the league to put out certain types of stories (although I might direct you to the whole Breitbart / Deadspin $ for click type thing out there if you doubt such things are possible. You might also read Ryan Halliday or Holiday's book about online media which is super interesting).

But if you're the NBA you gotta realize that this "tanking" narrative that is being crafted in sports radio on up is just brutal for the integrity of your league. Look... as far as I know, not one GM has really said "we're tanking"... although the worst ones do flirt with such a confessional tone, giving a wink-wink and saying we're just looking toward the future or whatever. I mean it kind of lets these guys off the hook and no one wants to have to admit that they have utterly failed on a grand-historical scale in placing their teams among the worst sports franchises in any given year in the history of team sports. So, just as a fan it would be more satifsying to me if say the 76'rs LOST their 1st round pick, if the league just confiscated it from them for tanking let's say or if the worst teams got the worst picks and then it was just like "suck it, losers."

But my main point was that the writers/talkers/bloggers etc are largely crafting this narrative which is very damaging. From the league perspective, if the 76'rs are tanking it would be better if nobody KNEW they were tanking. Right? But somehow it starts out "they should take", then maybe they are tanking, then they've been tanking, the Spurs tanked, tanking is historically valid and now the GM is setting a world record for tanking. Etc. Which is bad. You need sportswriters to really dig deep and rip these guys a new one. Hey, you wanna tank? Fine. Let's just run a front page story every day till May about how much you suck, let's explore the vicissitudes of your incompetence and use advanced stats to break down all the obvious errors you are making and how so many good players you passed on or let go are producing or winning rings in other places. Etc. Why be nice about it? Seriously, what motivation do sportwriters have to sugar coat this or excuse it with the made-up narrative of "tanking" ?

As for the numbers, what I meant is this:

Bottom 15 teams go into the lottery. Equally weighted lottery means each team has a 1/15 chance of getting the first pick. (6% chance).

Then let's say a top contender like San Antonio or OKC has a... let's say 1/10 chance of falling apart and dropping into the lotto in any give year (10% chance)

Then let's say in any given year there is a 1/10 chance that a Jordan or an Anthony Davis or a Kobe will be in that draft. (so say 10% chance but you might weight this differently.

That means the overall probability of a meltdown scenario where OKC adds a young Jordan to a core of Westbrook-Durant-Ibaka-Lamb-etc and dominates the league for 10 years is

.06 x .10 x .10 = 0.0006

Which is about a 1 to 1,500 longshot.

So, the idea of incentivizing a handful of teams, some in major markets like Boston or Philly, to "tank" for entire seasons or multiple seasons in order to prevent this supposed doomsday scenario seems untenable for the league. (even if maybe all these big shot owners would have to eat a lot more crow while Lebron or Duncan or Durant or Kobe hold up a lot of big golden trophies with lots of fingers and say "it's all about winning" a lot of times).

Actually I see now that a lot of people understand this problem better than I do and have actually gone pretty far in working out ways to fix it. Which is great. I think we all just want to see good basketball games with good talented players just throw them out there and let them play. Just everybody swing for the fences and don't worry so much about where everybody ends up in the standings. It's not like baseball a lot of teams can make the playoffs so don't worry just play. And I really like the one and done tournament idea for non-playoff teams that is hype

Sean Moore
12-17-2014, 05:20 AM
The bigger issue is GMs and owners knowing they continue to become more rich and okay with letting the team suck.

The NHL doesn't have this kind of issue even though they are a similar draft system. NHL needs teams to be competitive cause they need the money more to stay afloat.

That's exactly what I was going to post. Not exactly word for word, but you catch my drift.

2-ONE-5
12-17-2014, 12:50 PM
I will have to agree with you. Noone else is deliberately tanking.

Just bad GMs and management are ruining the league.

which has been the case for years with teams. However draft classes have been starting to improve it looks like and that helps drive tanking. If the 2014 (and 2015) class was anything like the 2013 class you can bet the Sixers would not be rebuilding this exact way.

2-ONE-5
12-17-2014, 12:51 PM
Haha.. I totally didn't see your post but I think a tourney is the way to go as well..

how? when a team like OKC misses out they are just going to crush everyone. There is a different between the first few teams who miss out and the last few

2-ONE-5
12-17-2014, 12:54 PM
That's exactly what I was going to post. Not exactly word for word, but you catch my drift.

NHL is a more balanced league where the stars mean less to a teams overall success. 1 player cant carry a hockey team to a title or finals apperance.

NYCkid12
12-17-2014, 01:27 PM
So let me get this straight ..... we want more teams like the Cavs, Thunder, Spurs, etc. (aka contending teams)

But we want to eliminate the process that helped those teams be where they are.... Thunder (Sonics at times) "tanked" and got top picks that landed Durant,Harden, Westbrook

Spurs "tanked" and got D-Robinson and Duncan

Cavs "tanked" and got Lebron James

Those teams are built around those star players and are great now but at a time were a terrible team looking to improve through the draft

2-ONE-5
12-17-2014, 02:44 PM
Blazers, Raptors, Warriors, Bulls, Spurs, Thunder, Pacers (prior to this year) all built their teams through the draft and the Clippers wouldnt have CP3 without Griffin and to a lesser extent DJ there.

crewfan13
12-17-2014, 03:45 PM
The whole notion that the only way to get better is to tank is so false. There's so many things that even small market teams can do to make a competitive team.

- scout and draft wisely
-make smart trades
-look for under the radar free agents, or players not being used properly
- hire a legitimate coach instead of someone with no experience just because its cheaper
- keep a actual core together for more than just 2 years.

Basically be a competent GM

Not nearly as easy or as doable as you make it seems. I use the Bucks for a ton of examples because they're close to home for me, but they've actually done an incredibly job drafting lately. Since Hammond was in power and they blew the Joe Alexander pick (partially a pick made by ownership in Hammonds first weeks on the job), he's always drafted and scouted well, but has been picking as 10 or later (up until this year). Brandon Jennings, Larry Sanders, Tobias Harris, and possibly even John Henson have all outplayed their draft position. If you were to redraft all those drafts, all of those guys would go before or right around where the Bucks picked, meaning we drafted and scouted well. Problem is, when you're picking in the middle of the draft, especially in a weak draft, getting a role player is a win, but taking role players year after year doesn't make you a contender. It just keeps you in purgatory.

Same with trades. Sure, we traded Harris and it was a stupid win now move. But if all the assets on your team are role player types, you're not trading for an All-Star type player. In the past 5 years, who could the Bucks have reasonably traded for by just giving up the likes of the Ersan Ilyasova, Tobias Harris and John Henson types? WE weren't getting James Harden with that package, and he was basically the only elite level talent traded for a somewhat reasonable package.

What under the radar free agents have blossomed into studs. Sure, there's guys like Kyle Lowry that can be had, but those guys are taking good teams and making them really good teams. Those guys aren't taking bad or even mediocre teams and making them really good teams. We could have overspent for Al Jefferson, and kept a core of Jennings, Monta Ellis, Al Jeffereson and a bunch of low paid trash together as an option, but is that anywhere near a championship contendere? Not really.

Finally, keeping a core together requires having a core. If your core simply consists of role players, and even if you keep them together and let them develop into a good team, the best you're probably doing is last year's Hawks team. No offense to Hawks fans, and that was a well coached team that got a lot out of not much for players, but they weren't winning a championship. Winning a first round playoff matchup would be a good success for a team like that.


I think the lotto teams should have to play for the number one pick.. A one and done tournament after the NBA finals to determine who gets the first pick.. Teams with the better record would be the higher seeds and the top 2 teams would get a bye in the first round.. Set it up similar to the NCAA tourney and play at a neutral site with it going on from a Thursday to Sunday..

What happens to the truly bad teams. Again, I'll use the Bucks as an example. We were a truly bad team last year. We went into the season and made moves (like signing Mayo and extending our own guys) with the intent of competing for the playoffs. Between injuries and a bunch of mismatched pieces, we truly stunk. What happens when teams like that exist (and they do more than you think). They will be perennially bad and will lose right away in that playoff, giving them a middle lottery pick every year. That's a great way to keep the bad teams bad.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 04:26 PM
Yeah... I'm not really saying that (most) journalists would take dollars from the league to put out certain types of stories (although I might direct you to the whole Breitbart / Deadspin $ for click type thing out there if you doubt such things are possible. You might also read Ryan Halliday or Holiday's book about online media which is super interesting).

But if you're the NBA you gotta realize that this "tanking" narrative that is being crafted in sports radio on up is just brutal for the integrity of your league. Look... as far as I know, not one GM has really said "we're tanking"... although the worst ones do flirt with such a confessional tone, giving a wink-wink and saying we're just looking toward the future or whatever. I mean it kind of lets these guys off the hook and no one wants to have to admit that they have utterly failed on a grand-historical scale in placing their teams among the worst sports franchises in any given year in the history of team sports. So, just as a fan it would be more satifsying to me if say the 76'rs LOST their 1st round pick, if the league just confiscated it from them for tanking let's say or if the worst teams got the worst picks and then it was just like "suck it, losers."

But my main point was that the writers/talkers/bloggers etc are largely crafting this narrative which is very damaging. From the league perspective, if the 76'rs are tanking it would be better if nobody KNEW they were tanking. Right? But somehow it starts out "they should take", then maybe they are tanking, then they've been tanking, the Spurs tanked, tanking is historically valid and now the GM is setting a world record for tanking. Etc. Which is bad. You need sportswriters to really dig deep and rip these guys a new one. Hey, you wanna tank? Fine. Let's just run a front page story every day till May about how much you suck, let's explore the vicissitudes of your incompetence and use advanced stats to break down all the obvious errors you are making and how so many good players you passed on or let go are producing or winning rings in other places. Etc. Why be nice about it? Seriously, what motivation do sportwriters have to sugar coat this or excuse it with the made-up narrative of "tanking" ?
This is all nonsense. You said yourself that a lot of teams have tanked in the history of this sport. Sportswriters aren't responsible for making up some "tanking narrative." The sport itself is responsible, and teams are responsible because they're the ones tanking. It doesn't matter what you call it, but any sports fan knows exactly what's going on when teams start heading down that path. The average fan may not be a genius, but he's not a complete idiot either.

So let's drop the media from this discussion altogether, because it has absolutely zero to do with the problem you're talking about.


As for the numbers, what I meant is this:

Bottom 15 teams go into the lottery. Equally weighted lottery means each team has a 1/15 chance of getting the first pick. (6% chance).
Okay. This seems eerily similar to what I posted early. The only difference here is that you're providing equal wait for the bottom 15 teams whereas I just think the odds need to be distributed a bit more so that teams at the bottom don't have quite as significant an advantage. I just don't think it makes any sense to to give a team that barely missed out on the playoffs an equal shot at the No. 1 pick as a team with 15 wins. That doesn't make sense.

Also, why 15? What's wrong with just giving the teams outside of the playoffs a shot at the lottery as has always been the case? I just don't follow your logic of adding one more team just for the hell of it.


Then let's say a top contender like San Antonio or OKC has a... let's say 1/10 chance of falling apart and dropping into the lotto in any give year (10% chance)

Then let's say in any given year there is a 1/10 chance that a Jordan or an Anthony Davis or a Kobe will be in that draft. (so say 10% chance but you might weight this differently.

That means the overall probability of a meltdown scenario where OKC adds a young Jordan to a core of Westbrook-Durant-Ibaka-Lamb-etc and dominates the league for 10 years is

.06 x .10 x .10 = 0.0006

Which is about a 1 to 1,500 longshot.
Again, this is just nonsense. You provided an arbitrary percentage to something and then another arbitrary percentage to something else to try to come up with another arbitrary number to prove your point. Bottom line, there is always a chance a really, really good team could miss the playoffs. In the Western Conference, in fact, that's actually a factual reality pretty much every season. If OKC doesn't miss the playoffs, then New Orleans and/or Phoenix will, two teams that could easily make the postseason in the East. So why should those teams get an equal shot at getting a Lebron James or an Anthony Davis in the drat as teams like Philly, Detroit, Minnesota or Utah? I don't follow your logic there.


Actually I see now that a lot of people understand this problem better than I do and have actually gone pretty far in working out ways to fix it. Which is great. I think we all just want to see good basketball games with good talented players just throw them out there and let them play. Just everybody swing for the fences and don't worry so much about where everybody ends up in the standings. It's not like baseball a lot of teams can make the playoffs so don't worry just play. And I really like the one and done tournament idea for non-playoff teams that is hype
But in all of this rambling, you've failed to see the big picture. What damage does tanking really do to the league? None whatsoever. It will have very little, if any, impact on the postseason race. And average non-76er fans probably wouldn't want to watch a mediocre basketball team in Philly any more than they would want to watch a horrible, tanking team in Philly.

The only group that tanking really hurts is the fan base of the team that is tanking. But trust me when I say that most fan bases would rather their team go into full tank mode than to miss out on the playoffs as the 9 seed every year. I was a fan of the Rockets when they finished 9th in the West for three straight years. It sucked. And I've been a fan of the Astros when they were mediocre and now when they're terrible. At least now that they're terrible, I know they're doing what they can do build up their farm system to be better in the future.

Hell, you could make a case that tanking is actually good for the league. Sure, no one wants to watch a team that wins 15 games a year. But they'll want to watch that 15-win team when they draft the next Tim Duncan, Lebron James or Anthony Davis. And if you're in small or mid-sized markets, tanking might be the best shot you have at getting better. No superstar player is signing a long-term deal in Utah or Minnesota. So the best shot those franchises have is to lose a bunch of games and build through the draft until they get good again.

So go ahead and complain about tanking all you want, but it's always been a part of sports, and it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.

Jamiecballer
12-17-2014, 05:21 PM
i don't know why more people don't like the idea of a completely random draft each and every year. without any idea when your team might draft in the near future each and every team would be motivated by one thing and one thing only, putting the best team they possibly can on the floor each and every night.

is everyone seriously that scared of a top team getting a top pick when the odds are just as good that it would be your team that would have the good fortune?

Shammyguy3
12-17-2014, 05:29 PM
Honestly, I think the current system is about as good as it could possibly be. There is literally ZERO way to have a draft lottery and for it to be 100% fair. But the idea that the team with the best record in the league should have the same chance to get the top pick as the team with the worst team in the league is completely asinine. At least the current system makes it so the team that ends up with the worst record isn't a lock to get the top pick and all teams within the lottery have a shot to get a top 3 pick.

The only thing they could do to maybe improve it slightly is to redistribute the odds so that the worst teams in the league are less likely to earn a top pick and teams at the bottom of the lottery are more likely to receive one. Maybe something like this:

14: 1%
13: 2%
12: 3%
11: 4%
10: 5%
9: 6%
8: 7%
7: 8%
6: 9%
5: 11%
4: 11%
3: 11%
2: 11%
1: 11%

I'd be fine with some kind of system like this. At least this way, there's no benefit to having the worst record in the league versus having the 5th worst record in the league and teams that finish 9th or 10th in the lottery still have a really solid shot. But I am NOT for allowing teams outside of the lottery to have a shot at a top 3 pick. Because one player can swing an entire generation of NBA basketball, and if that player fell into the hands of an already great basketball team, it could create an unstoppable dynasty.

I agree, the percentages need a small tweak. I also think the top-5 picks should be drawn for rather than the top-3. I'd change the percentages you have in this case to

14: 2%
13: 3%
12: 5%
11: 6%
10: 7%
9: 7%
8: 7%
7: 8%
6: 8%
5: 9%
4: 9%
3: 9%
2: 10%
1: 10%

Shammyguy3
12-17-2014, 05:34 PM
i don't know why more people don't like the idea of a completely random draft each and every year. without any idea when your team might draft in the near future each and every team would be motivated by one thing and one thing only, putting the best team they possibly can on the floor each and every night.

is everyone seriously that scared of a top team getting a top pick when the odds are just as good that it would be your team that would have the good fortune?

The point is that the best teams in the league shouldn't get equal chances at the upcoming best generation players. There's a 29x greater chance of Philadelphia not getting the player they need to change their franchise around, Utah, Detroit, Orlando, etc etc.

Imagine the Bulls in '97 winning the draft and getting Tim Duncan with the 1st overall pick, then the following year getting the 7th pick and selecting Dirk Nowitzki.


Yeah, that's totally good for the league.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 05:35 PM
i don't know why more people don't like the idea of a completely random draft each and every year. without any idea when your team might draft in the near future each and every team would be motivated by one thing and one thing only, putting the best team they possibly can on the floor each and every night.
That's completely ludicrous. Also, if the draft order was randomized, how are small market teams supposed to improve? Suppose you're Minnesota or Utah and you're drafting 20th or higher every year. How is that fair if Boston, New York and LA are drafting in the top 5? If all teams were on an equal playing field in terms of attracting free agents, a random draft order might have merit. They do not.


is everyone seriously that scared of a top team getting a top pick when the odds are just as good that it would be your team that would have the good fortune?
Yes. That's exactly what the league should be afraid of. The only reason that people remain fans of terrible teams is that they honestly believe their team could some day be good again and win a championship. If you live in a small market or mid-sized market and your team is terrible, you either have to put all your hopes on the draft or on having your GM work magic with whatever assets your franchise has in place.

Imagine if the NBA told fans in Minnesota, Utah, Sacramento, etc. that the draft was now going to be randomized and their existing draft order meant nothing. For fans of bad teams, why in the hell would they want to go to games or watch them anymore? If your team sucks and it's not likely to get better through the draft next year, what exactly do you have to look forward to?

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 06:10 PM
how? when a team like OKC misses out they are just going to crush everyone. There is a different between the first few teams who miss out and the last few

boo frickin' hoo.

seriously, if teams feel like they're just not good enough to compete... there should be some kind of opt-out rule or tap-out rule where a team can just say "uncle" and not have to play the games. I mean what the **** are we talking about if now we can't have a post season tournament for non playoff teams because the low seeds will be too embarassed or whatever. Seriously?

I'd just tell teams play, have fun, put it all out there on the court. Just Do It.

I mean realistically, the 76'rs may not win a title in the next 100 years. Seriously. It is (literally) a coin flip that the 76'rs do not win a single NBA title this century.

But you still want to play NBA ball... right? You still want to do this whole "NBA basketball" thing... right?

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 06:17 PM
I mean realistically, the 76'rs may not win a title in the next 100 years. Seriously. It is (literally) a coin flip that the 76'rs do not win a single NBA title this century.

But you still want to play NBA ball... right? You still want to do this whole "NBA basketball" thing... right?

I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. The 76ers aren't alone in that conversation. There are professional sports franchises that have been around for decades and have not won a thing and aren't likely to win a thing anytime soon. At least the 76ers have won three titles as a franchise (if you count the Nationals). That's a lot more than we can say for most NBA franchises. But even if they hadn't won a single title, what point does that make? What does that have to do with this conversation whatsoever?

Jamiecballer
12-17-2014, 06:28 PM
That's completely ludicrous. Also, if the draft order was randomized, how are small market teams supposed to improve? Suppose you're Minnesota or Utah and you're drafting 20th or higher every year. How is that fair if Boston, New York and LA are drafting in the top 5? If all teams were on an equal playing field in terms of attracting free agents, a random draft order might have merit. They do not.


Yes. That's exactly what the league should be afraid of. The only reason that people remain fans of terrible teams is that they honestly believe their team could some day be good again and win a championship. If you live in a small market or mid-sized market and your team is terrible, you either have to put all your hopes on the draft or on having your GM work magic with whatever assets your franchise has in place.

Imagine if the NBA told fans in Minnesota, Utah, Sacramento, etc. that the draft was now going to be randomized and their existing draft order meant nothing. For fans of bad teams, why in the hell would they want to go to games or watch them anymore? If your team sucks and it's not likely to get better through the draft next year, what exactly do you have to look forward to?
The Minnesota's, Sacramento's of the world got where they are and tend to stay there because of poor management more than anything. And the "there's always our next lottery pick" crutch keeps them there and spoils player development.

Now if you take away that crutch teams (and owners) would be forced to look inward for the real source of their constant suckyness

Shammyguy3
12-17-2014, 06:29 PM
People constantly complaining about the tank job, and fail to realize if the 76ers have the worst record they'll have a 75% of NOT getting the top pick.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 06:35 PM
This is all nonsense. You said yourself that a lot of teams have tanked in the history of this sport. Sportswriters aren't responsible for making up some "tanking narrative." The sport itself is responsible, and teams are responsible because they're the ones tanking. It doesn't matter what you call it, but any sports fan knows exactly what's going on when teams start heading down that path. The average fan may not be a genius, but he's not a complete idiot either.

So let's drop the media from this discussion altogether, because it has absolutely zero to do with the problem you're talking about.


Okay. This seems eerily similar to what I posted early. The only difference here is that you're providing equal wait for the bottom 15 teams whereas I just think the odds need to be distributed a bit more so that teams at the bottom don't have quite as significant an advantage. I just don't think it makes any sense to to give a team that barely missed out on the playoffs an equal shot at the No. 1 pick as a team with 15 wins. That doesn't make sense.

Also, why 15? What's wrong with just giving the teams outside of the playoffs a shot at the lottery as has always been the case? I just don't follow your logic of adding one more team just for the hell of it.


Again, this is just nonsense. You provided an arbitrary percentage to something and then another arbitrary percentage to something else to try to come up with another arbitrary number to prove your point. Bottom line, there is always a chance a really, really good team could miss the playoffs. In the Western Conference, in fact, that's actually a factual reality pretty much every season. If OKC doesn't miss the playoffs, then New Orleans and/or Phoenix will, two teams that could easily make the postseason in the East. So why should those teams get an equal shot at getting a Lebron James or an Anthony Davis in the drat as teams like Philly, Detroit, Minnesota or Utah? I don't follow your logic there.


But in all of this rambling, you've failed to see the big picture. What damage does tanking really do to the league? None whatsoever. It will have very little, if any, impact on the postseason race. And average non-76er fans probably wouldn't want to watch a mediocre basketball team in Philly any more than they would want to watch a horrible, tanking team in Philly.

The only group that tanking really hurts is the fan base of the team that is tanking. But trust me when I say that most fan bases would rather their team go into full tank mode than to miss out on the playoffs as the 9 seed every year. I was a fan of the Rockets when they finished 9th in the West for three straight years. It sucked. And I've been a fan of the Astros when they were mediocre and now when they're terrible. At least now that they're terrible, I know they're doing what they can do build up their farm system to be better in the future.

Hell, you could make a case that tanking is actually good for the league. Sure, no one wants to watch a team that wins 15 games a year. But they'll want to watch that 15-win team when they draft the next Tim Duncan, Lebron James or Anthony Davis. And if you're in small or mid-sized markets, tanking might be the best shot you have at getting better. No superstar player is signing a long-term deal in Utah or Minnesota. So the best shot those franchises have is to lose a bunch of games and build through the draft until they get good again.

So go ahead and complain about tanking all you want, but it's always been a part of sports, and it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.


Wow... I just don't see how anybody can sit there and say that "tanking" doesn't hurt the league.

That for a professional sports league that plays 1,200+ games a year and is desperately to drive demand and generate market share and interest, a full 10%-20% of its games (its "product") aren't even really "games" because they're being thrown and/or because one of the teams is conducting itself in a completely non-competitive or anti-competitive manner. An unsportsmanlike manner, if I may be so bold, sir.

Sorry, we're just gonna have to disagree on that one. And yeah, the media (including talk radio) being aware of and talking about tanking does in fact promulgate a makeshift narrative of "teams are tanking" and that makes the NBA's problem worse. The fact that a number of posters actually defend tanking and say that's the only way teams can be built and are openly rooting for their teams to tank (i.e., waste entire seasons and years) is proof of this.

And if we're going to tweak the lottery to even out the odds for the 14 non playoff teams, why not just flatten it completely? There's already a disparity because conferences and some lottery teams will be far better than others regardless. So just take the incentive to tank OUT of the lottery completely. Otherwise Philly/Boston etc may still tank an entire season just to double their 6% chance of the first pick to a 12%. (of course as it stands now of this "can't pick lower than #3" rule is just FN gross).

More importantly, I think, flattening the odds takes away the excuses or the fig leaf for bad ownership and bad management and bad coaching and bad players. Because even if you suck and you get 11% chance instead of 5% chance you can still say *wink wink* yeah we're still ballaz we're just tanking. But when everybody has the same odds, yeah, sorry, you just suck so come back again next year.

What I am hearing in all this is that the handful of excellent players in the league (the Westbrook, Lebron, Davis guys) are SO extraordinarily valuable and rare that many think it a fine enterprise to dispense with competitive play altogether for years at a time. Makes you think about what they should make.

One last thing: in the modern age of computers, we shouldn't have to wait YEARS in meat-world time for teams to "tank" to find out who is getting the top picks. This is where the merit of the (Mark Cuban?) idea of setting out the picks for 30 years into the future comes in. Or there might be other ways to use metrics or computational algorithms to decide ahead of time.

For instance the teams as constructed could be modeled and put into a simulator, and we run 10,000 regular seaons worth of games off in virtual reality in one day. Then we take those rankings and set next years draft order. BEFORE the season starts. Then the teams are now free to go out there and try to play some basketball and don't have to worry. *yayyyy* Simple. Then teams don't have to spend endless days, months, YEARS going out there pretending to play just to affect some percentage in a random drawing.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 06:37 PM
The Minnesota's, Sacramento's of the world got where they are and tend to stay there because of poor management more than anything. And the "there's always our next lottery pick" crutch keeps them there and spoils player development.

Now if you take away that crutch teams (and owners) would be forced to look inward for the real source of their constant suckyness

^ yes! Well said dude.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 06:38 PM
People constantly complaining about the tank job, and fail to realize if the 76ers have the worst record they'll have a 75% of NOT getting the top pick.

yeah I'm not worried about the picks at all, more concerned that all those hundreds of "tanked" games are a complete joke for the league.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 06:40 PM
I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. The 76ers aren't alone in that conversation. There are professional sports franchises that have been around for decades and have not won a thing and aren't likely to win a thing anytime soon. At least the 76ers have won three titles as a franchise (if you count the Nationals). That's a lot more than we can say for most NBA franchises. But even if they hadn't won a single title, what point does that make? What does that have to do with this conversation whatsoever?

I'm just offering some rational perspective to tampen all of this Philly euphoria about how the 76'rs are tanking so well I guess...

Sanjay
12-17-2014, 07:02 PM
I don't see how the draft lottery is responsible for teams tanking. Teams tank because they can't compete for a championship. The NBA's real problem is that it doesn't have enough talent to provide enough parity, so all the mediocre teams eventually tank to try to get the next superstar so that they can compete. Teams like the 76ers have no other way to be contenders in the NBA's current model and I personally don't understand how people think the draft lottery is responsible. Personally I think the NBA could benefit from a model like the English Premier League. Most notably its relegation system and loaning system.

While it might seem counter intuitive this would also give the NBA an opportunity for expansion. The NBA could do away with the eastern and western conferences since there would be less teams competing for the playoffs in the top league/division. Basically the top x teams would get promoted from the secondary league to the main league while the bottom x teams get relegated to the secondary league every year. I have a feeling small market teams would lose a lot of their value if this were to happen so the owners would never allow it, but I'll continue to dream.

As a Bobcats/Hornets fan that has watched some horrible teams I think it would have been cool to see some of the better players on those horrible teams go on loan to to playoff contender for the rest of that season and get something like ca$h or draft pick(s) in return. Not to mention how much more awesome it would make the NBA playoffs and how many more actual contenders for the championship there could be.

A hypothetical adoption of parts of the English Premier League system to the NBA is interesting. Would you still want a draft and lottery and would it work the same as it currently does? Loan players would be a good idea, but I do not think it would fit the American sports culture. I believe the ultimate dream for NBA, NFL e.t.c. players - or guys such as Kobe and Duncan anyway - is to play for one team their entire career and win as many championships as possible with that franchise. Compare this to 'international sports' where it is more about personal image and money.

Sanjay
12-17-2014, 07:14 PM
Regarding the idea of allowing players entering the NBA to sign for whichever team they want to with franchises having weighted amounts of money to offer based on their performance the previous season, if I was a rookie I would rather go to the Spurs for less money and having the chance to win championships/play for Popovich than get 'big bucks' in Philly (apologizes to 76ers fans for using your team as an example, fyi I do not have a problem with your franchise tanking to get better, it is the only way to do so in today's NBA dominated by megastars).

Puck017
12-17-2014, 07:41 PM
A hypothetical adoption of parts of the English Premier League system to the NBA is interesting. Would you still want a draft and lottery and would it work the same as it currently does? Loan players would be a good idea, but I do not think it would fit the American sports culture. I believe the ultimate dream for NBA, NFL e.t.c. players - or guys such as Kobe and Duncan anyway - is to play for one team their entire career and win as many championships as possible with that franchise. Compare this to 'international sports' where it is more about personal image and money.

You make a good point. Player loans would only enable teams to take tanking even further with the current draft lottery system. I would go with a draft wheel system along with player loans. Out of all the major American team sports the NBA is the only one that has a culture where stars are so enticed to leave for larger markets to help their brand to earn money outside of the NBA. As a fan of a small market team I also have a hard time imagining a player spending their whole hall of fame career with the Hornets. I basically think things would have to fall into place where they became a constant powerhouse like the Spurs. Its nice when it happens and you get pissed to no end when Steve Smith gets released, but eventually you get over it and move on with your team. Boston had no problems trading Paul Pierce to help their rebuilding process.

Puck017
12-17-2014, 07:52 PM
Regarding the idea of allowing players entering the NBA to sign for whichever team they want to with franchises having weighted amounts of money to offer based on their performance the previous season, if I was a rookie I would rather go to the Spurs for less money and having the chance to win championships/play for Popovich than get 'big bucks' in Philly (apologizes to 76ers fans for using your team as an example, fyi I do not have a problem with your franchise tanking to get better, it is the only way to do so in today's NBA dominated by megastars).

I can't argue with that. The Spurs track record with player development is too good for them to not receive favoritism from prospects, but we would most likely be talking about a loss in the ballpark of $10,000,000 by the end of the contract. To play for one of the best teams in comparison to what one of the worst teams could have offered.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 07:55 PM
The Minnesota's, Sacramento's of the world got where they are and tend to stay there because of poor management more than anything. And the "there's always our next lottery pick" crutch keeps them there and spoils player development.

Now if you take away that crutch teams (and owners) would be forced to look inward for the real source of their constant suckyness

Oh really? Let's take a look at all of the relatively successful small market teams over the last few years:
San Antonio? Drafted Robinson and Duncan both first overall.
Cleveland? Drafted Lebron, Irving and Wiggins first overall.
OKC? Drafted Durant, Westbrook and Harden with three straight top four picks.
Memphis? Drafted Conley 4th overall. Got insanely lucky with horrible Gasol for Gasol trade with Lakers.
Portland? Drafted Alrdidge 2nd in 2006 and Lillard 6th overall in 2012.
Washington? Drafted Wall first overall.

Let's not pretend that these small market teams have only seen success because they were incredibly well managed. The reason these teams have been successful was because they got really talented players in the draft. Sure, San Antonio has stayed great these few years because they were incredibly well managed and coached. But OKC? Cleveland? Washington? You take away their talented players from the draft and they would have accomplished absolutely nothing in the last decade.

And if we were to take a look at the small market teams that aren't successful (aka Sacramento, Minnesota, Utah, Toronto, etc.), we would see quite a few poorly selected draft picks. The only thing separating those teams from the teams I just mentioned above is they got lucky in the draft and have been able to keep that drafted talent for an extended period of time. Hell, Minnesota had Love and couldn't keep him because nobody on that team could stay healthy and he bolted the first chance he got.

If you took the draft away from small market teams, they would have nothing. Trust me. Once all of those successful small market teams run out of talent, they'll suck again until they get lucky enough to strike gold in the draft. That's the NBA today and there's no way around it.

Jamiecballer
12-17-2014, 07:57 PM
Oh really? Let's take a look at all of the relatively successful small market teams over the last few years:
San Antonio? Drafted Robinson and Duncan both first overall.
Cleveland? Drafted Lebron, Irving and Wiggins first overall.
OKC? Drafted Durant, Westbrook and Harden with three straight top four picks.
Memphis? Drafted Conley 4th overall. Got insanely lucky with horrible Gasol for Gasol trade with Lakers.
Portland? Drafted Alrdidge 2nd in 2006 and Lillard 6th overall in 2012.
Washington? Drafted Wall first overall.

Let's not pretend that these small market teams have only seen success because they were incredibly well managed. The reason these teams have been successful was because they got really talented players in the draft. Sure, San Antonio has stayed great these few years because they were incredibly well managed and coached. But OKC? Cleveland? Washington? You take away their talented players from the draft and they would have accomplished absolutely nothing in the last decade.

And if we were to take a look at the small market teams that aren't successful (aka Sacramento, Minnesota, Utah, Toronto, etc.), we would see quite a few poorly selected draft picks. The only thing separating those teams from the teams I just mentioned above is they got lucky in the draft and have been able to keep that drafted talent for an extended period of time. Hell, Minnesota had Love and couldn't keep him because nobody on that team could stay healthy and he bolted the first chance he got.

If you took the draft away from small market teams, they would have nothing. Trust me. Once all of those successful small market teams run out of talent, they'll suck again until they get lucky enough to strike gold in the draft. That's the NBA today and there's no way around it.
I didn't say anything about small markets so I'm not sure what this has to do with me.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 08:16 PM
Wow... I just don't see how anybody can sit there and say that "tanking" doesn't hurt the league.

That for a professional sports league that plays 1,200+ games a year and is desperately to drive demand and generate market share and interest, a full 10%-20% of its games (its "product") aren't even really "games" because they're being thrown and/or because one of the teams is conducting itself in a completely non-competitive or anti-competitive manner. An unsportsmanlike manner, if I may be so bold, sir.

Sorry, we're just gonna have to disagree on that one.
So tell me this... Are you going to be paying close attention to the Titans and Jaguars game tomorrow night? I'm a Titans fan, and even I have no freaking plans to watch it. And if the Astros had a three game series in the middle of July with the Twins, are you going to be glued to your television to watch that? Hell no. Bad teams are going to be bad. And they're not going to be fun to watch. It doesn't matter if teams are "tanking" or not. And it doesn't matter what sport you're watching. A sporting event between two bad teams is not going to get a lot of attention. People would not be more inclined to watch the Sixers if they were 6-18 rather than 2-22.

Also, the very phrase "tanking" is completely unfair in the first place. The word itself almost insinuates that the players are throwing games (as you yourself stated). That couldn't be further from the truth. You think that first win didn't matter to Nerlens Noel and those other young guys? Of course it did. Just because the front office is trying to build a young team through the draft doesn't mean the players and coaching staffs aren't trying to win games.


And yeah, the media (including talk radio) being aware of and talking about tanking does in fact promulgate a makeshift narrative of "teams are tanking" and that makes the NBA's problem worse. The fact that a number of posters actually defend tanking and say that's the only way teams can be built and are openly rooting for their teams to tank (i.e., waste entire seasons and years) is proof of this.
Agree to disagree. I don't need the media to tell me when a team is tanking. I have half a brain and can see it for myself.


And if we're going to tweak the lottery to even out the odds for the 14 non playoff teams, why not just flatten it completely? There's already a disparity because conferences and some lottery teams will be far better than others regardless. So just take the incentive to tank OUT of the lottery completely. Otherwise Philly/Boston etc may still tank an entire season just to double their 6% chance of the first pick to a 12%. (of course as it stands now of this "can't pick lower than #3" rule is just FN gross).
I'll give you a great reason why. Because even in your perfect plan, you haven't gotten rid of tanking. Let me throw out a scenario for you.... Suppose it's the last month of the season and Brooklyn, Milwaukee and Orlando are fighting for that last playoff spot in the East. Each of those teams knows it has zero shot to win in the first round. And because you just gave them a huge incentive to not make the playoffs by giving them an equal shot at the top few picks, they're more inclined to lose games than to win them. All of a sudden Brooklyn is sitting Deron Williams and Brook Lopez for undisclosed injuries and Milwaukee starts playing around with different lineups to get young guys more playing time.

That may not be the same kind of tanking we're seeing from Philly, but it's absolutely still tanking. And I guarantee you that it would happen.


More importantly, I think, flattening the odds takes away the excuses or the fig leaf for bad ownership and bad management and bad coaching and bad players. Because even if you suck and you get 11% chance instead of 5% chance you can still say *wink wink* yeah we're still ballaz we're just tanking. But when everybody has the same odds, yeah, sorry, you just suck so come back again next year.
It's not an excuse for being mismanaged, but it is a strategy to try and improve. Teams have been successful with it before. I think you're just refusing to accept that it can, in fact, be a good way to improve your franchise in the long run. My guess is that it's because you're a Laker fan and you've never been in this situation before.


What I am hearing in all this is that the handful of excellent players in the league (the Westbrook, Lebron, Davis guys) are SO extraordinarily valuable and rare that many think it a fine enterprise to dispense with competitive play altogether for years at a time. Makes you think about what they should make.
I don't recall ever once saying that, but it is true. That's just common sense. Teams with great players succeed. Teams without great players don't. The 04 Pistons and 14 Spurs are anomalies, and even those rosters are greatly underrated for how much talent they had.


One last thing: in the modern age of computers, we shouldn't have to wait YEARS in meat-world time for teams to "tank" to find out who is getting the top picks. This is where the merit of the (Mark Cuban?) idea of setting out the picks for 30 years into the future comes in. Or there might be other ways to use metrics or computational algorithms to decide ahead of time.

For instance the teams as constructed could be modeled and put into a simulator, and we run 10,000 regular seaons worth of games off in virtual reality in one day. Then we take those rankings and set next years draft order. BEFORE the season starts. Then the teams are now free to go out there and try to play some basketball and don't have to worry. *yayyyy* Simple. Then teams don't have to spend endless days, months, YEARS going out there pretending to play just to affect some percentage in a random drawing.
I don't follow your logic. How is that going to prevent the kind of tanking we're seeing from Philly? They're not deliberately throwing games as players and coaches. They're tanking by getting rid of any semblance of veteran talent and throwing out young guys and D-league players and calling it an NBA franchise. In your scenario, if I were an NBA GM and I wanted my team to receive the top pick based on a simulation, I would make the shittiest roster possible to try and lose as many simulated games as possible. Oh wait! The 76ers already did that. So you've accomplished nothing with your strategy.

The only thing that simulator would fix is to prevent teams from sitting players later in the season when they're fighting for the higher draft picks. But by that time, no one gives a **** about those terrible teams anyway. And they would probably rest their star players anyway to prevent injuries going into next season. So there's no really no way to prove it would make any kind of difference at all.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 08:24 PM
I didn't say anything about small markets so I'm not sure what this has to do with me.

Because what you're saying is that teams like Minnesota and Sacramento are consistently terrible solely because they're mismanaged. That's simply false. They're terrible because they're mismanaged AND because they're small market teams.

Small market teams that succeed usually only do so because they strike gold in the draft, such as the teams I mentioned in my post. But let's look at some of the larger market teams. Have the Heat or Knicks or Celtics or Lakers struck gold in the draft in recent years? No. They weren't successful because they drafted well. They were successful because great players want to play there.

Sure, large market teams have drafted the likes of Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce and Blake Griffin over the last 10-15 years. But they weren't successful solely with those players. They were successful because superstars joined up with them and helped them play better basketball. No one wanted to join Kevin Love in Minnesota. No one is going to help Gordon Hayward in Utah or Nikola Vucevic in Orlando. And the only reason Lebron is able to do it Cleveland is because he's Lebron freaking James.

Jamiecballer
12-17-2014, 08:38 PM
Because what you're saying is that teams like Minnesota and Sacramento are consistently terrible solely because they're mismanaged. That's simply false. They're terrible because they're mismanaged AND because they're small market teams.

Small market teams that succeed usually only do so because they strike gold in the draft, such as the teams I mentioned in my post. But let's look at some of the larger market teams. Have the Heat or Knicks or Celtics or Lakers struck gold in the draft in recent years? No. They weren't successful because they drafted well. They were successful because great players want to play there.

Sure, large market teams have drafted the likes of Dwyane Wade, Paul Pierce and Blake Griffin over the last 10-15 years. But they weren't successful solely with those players. They were successful because superstars joined up with them and helped them play better basketball. No one wanted to join Kevin Love in Minnesota. No one is going to help Gordon Hayward in Utah or Nikola Vucevic in Orlando. And the only reason Lebron is able to do it Cleveland is because he's Lebron freaking James.
That's horseshit imo. They are terrible because they made horrible decisions over an extended period of time and perpetuated their misery by constantly adding immature young people to a losing and toxic environment.

Toronto had one of those too and it took less than 2 years of sharp management to change their trajectory.

mightybosstone
12-17-2014, 08:43 PM
That's horseshit imo. They are terrible because they made horrible decisions over an extended period of time and perpetuated their misery by constantly adding immature young people to a losing and toxic environment.

Toronto had one of those too and it took less than 2 years of sharp management to change their trajectory.
I never said small or mid-sized market teams can't be successful without having top draft picks. There are a few GMs out there who could make a difference without top picks, but not everyone can have a Masai Ujiri or a Daryl Morey. The vast majority of the successful smaller market teams have been successful because of top draft picks, not because they have geniuses running their franchises.

Sssmush
12-17-2014, 10:22 PM
So tell me this... Are you going to be paying close attention to the Titans and Jaguars game tomorrow night? I'm a Titans fan, and even I have no freaking plans to watch it. And if the Astros had a three game series in the middle of July with the Twins, are you going to be glued to your television to watch that? Hell no. Bad teams are going to be bad. And they're not going to be fun to watch. It doesn't matter if teams are "tanking" or not. And it doesn't matter what sport you're watching. A sporting event between two bad teams is not going to get a lot of attention. People would not be more inclined to watch the Sixers if they were 6-18 rather than 2-22.

Also, the very phrase "tanking" is completely unfair in the first place. The word itself almost insinuates that the players are throwing games (as you yourself stated). That couldn't be further from the truth. You think that first win didn't matter to Nerlens Noel and those other young guys? Of course it did. Just because the front office is trying to build a young team through the draft doesn't mean the players and coaching staffs aren't trying to win games.


Agree to disagree. I don't need the media to tell me when a team is tanking. I have half a brain and can see it for myself.


I'll give you a great reason why. Because even in your perfect plan, you haven't gotten rid of tanking. Let me throw out a scenario for you.... Suppose it's the last month of the season and Brooklyn, Milwaukee and Orlando are fighting for that last playoff spot in the East. Each of those teams knows it has zero shot to win in the first round. And because you just gave them a huge incentive to not make the playoffs by giving them an equal shot at the top few picks, they're more inclined to lose games than to win them. All of a sudden Brooklyn is sitting Deron Williams and Brook Lopez for undisclosed injuries and Milwaukee starts playing around with different lineups to get young guys more playing time.

That may not be the same kind of tanking we're seeing from Philly, but it's absolutely still tanking. And I guarantee you that it would happen.


It's not an excuse for being mismanaged, but it is a strategy to try and improve. Teams have been successful with it before. I think you're just refusing to accept that it can, in fact, be a good way to improve your franchise in the long run. My guess is that it's because you're a Laker fan and you've never been in this situation before.


I don't recall ever once saying that, but it is true. That's just common sense. Teams with great players succeed. Teams without great players don't. The 04 Pistons and 14 Spurs are anomalies, and even those rosters are greatly underrated for how much talent they had.


I don't follow your logic. How is that going to prevent the kind of tanking we're seeing from Philly? They're not deliberately throwing games as players and coaches. They're tanking by getting rid of any semblance of veteran talent and throwing out young guys and D-league players and calling it an NBA franchise. In your scenario, if I were an NBA GM and I wanted my team to receive the top pick based on a simulation, I would make the shittiest roster possible to try and lose as many simulated games as possible. Oh wait! The 76ers already did that. So you've accomplished nothing with your strategy.

The only thing that simulator would fix is to prevent teams from sitting players later in the season when they're fighting for the higher draft picks. But by that time, no one gives a **** about those terrible teams anyway. And they would probably rest their star players anyway to prevent injuries going into next season. So there's no really no way to prove it would make any kind of difference at all.

Look... for every great lottery pick that made a team a contender there are about 10 who didn't do anything.

I mean sure, these so called small market teams, let's say the Hornets, are going to hugely improve with the addition of a top 10 player. But even that isn't going to equate to a championship necessarily. I mean OKC hasn't even won a championship with their superstar roster.

The big problem for the league is just the quality of the games. Pure and simple. It's the quality of the games.

The whole draft/competitive balance argument in the FIRST PLACE is that if the teams get out of balance, if the best teams are concentrated among a few elite franchises, then the quality of the games will decline because it will come down to just a few good teams and a bunch of scrub teams that nobody cares to watch.

But it totally defeats that purpose if half the teams intentionally "tank" and in essence race to the bottom as an indirect way of getting "back to the top" (which in most cases they were never at anyway).

The real problem for the league is that a TON of these games we're seeing become worthless as sporting events because they're not honestly contested.

Ask yourself: If Utah or the 76'rs doesn't care about these games, why should we? Why should I care? Why should I watch? I will watch a Tennessee Titans or NY Giants game because I know those guys will play and that will be a serious contest. A fight. A game. A chess game. A fight. A race. A horse race. A bet. A wager. A match.

Right? If it's not that, then why am I watching? The problem is the league's, not mine. Believe me I got things to do, things to watch. I'd like to see the NBA be more interesting, but if it sucks I barely notice. But I can't help commenting because I am astonished what I am seeing and hearing. This starts with ESPN radio.

To really improve the league should look at why teams feel they can't compete without a superstar. Look at the refereeing, HARD, and look honestly at "star calls" and that sort of thing. Make sure the competitive playing field is completely level and fair, that the refereeing is completely blind to which guy is a "superstar" and all that kind of stuff.

Beyond that, teams got revenue sharing and all that, what legit reason they got to tank? The lotto is always a crap shoot, so let's just keep it random. And it wouldn't hurt the league if a Wiggins or a Davis went to NYK or LAL once in a while. Seriously those places are where all the money for your "revenue sharing" is coming from anyway, so the objective of the whole system shouldn't be to prevent them from getting a top player.

2-ONE-5
12-18-2014, 09:59 AM
boo frickin' hoo.

seriously, if teams feel like they're just not good enough to compete... there should be some kind of opt-out rule or tap-out rule where a team can just say "uncle" and not have to play the games. I mean what the **** are we talking about if now we can't have a post season tournament for non playoff teams because the low seeds will be too embarassed or whatever. Seriously?

I'd just tell teams play, have fun, put it all out there on the court. Just Do It.

I mean realistically, the 76'rs may not win a title in the next 100 years. Seriously. It is (literally) a coin flip that the 76'rs do not win a single NBA title this century.

But you still want to play NBA ball... right? You still want to do this whole "NBA basketball" thing... right?

i need some of that **** you are smoking man

2-ONE-5
12-18-2014, 10:00 AM
yeah I'm not worried about the picks at all, more concerned that all those hundreds of "tanked" games are a complete joke for the league.

i will ask you AGAIN. Who else outside of the Sixers is tanking?

crewfan13
12-18-2014, 10:25 AM
That's horseshit imo. They are terrible because they made horrible decisions over an extended period of time and perpetuated their misery by constantly adding immature young people to a losing and toxic environment.

Toronto had one of those too and it took less than 2 years of sharp management to change their trajectory.

Demar Derozan, Terrance Ross, and Jonas Valanciunas were all top 10 picks. Kyle Lowry was a smart signing, but let's say they were drafting 15th all those years because they fought to make the playoffs. Or let's say there was a wheel idea in place, where they were able to get one of those guys, but picked in the late teens or 20s the other years.

IMO, the wheel idea is absolutely horrible. Not all NBA drafts are created equal. Look at the nfl draft, while not every draft has great QBs or sure fire number 1, can't miss type guys, you're always getting a chance at really good players with the top pick. The NBA draft is completely different, the difference between a draft with Lebron or Anthony Davis going first is much different between a draft with Anthony Bennett or Andrea Bargniani going first. Now imagine the wheel system in place. You're a college freshman, and you're a really, really good player. You know you're a top 3 talent, and have a great shot at going first overall. This upcoming draft, Minnesota has the first pick, Milwaukee has the second pick, and a mid to largish market has the third pick, but then the next year, LA has the first pick and Boston or New York has the 2nd or 3rd pick. Guys would now have the ability to choose where they will be drafted. And even if players don't "pick" their destination, you still get the first overall pick once every 30 years. If you're unfortunate enough to get #1 in a really weak class, then tough crap. If you're a small market team, this is devastating. And if Anthony Davis comes out the year a championship or near championship contender as the first pick, then the rich get richer. Such a stupid proposal.

crewfan13
12-18-2014, 10:31 AM
I also love this idea that apparently teams that tank don't play hard and how tanking is so much worse in the nba than in different sports. Sure, teams in the NFL may not come into a season and look like a team that's not going to win, but did anyone really expect Tennessee, Oakland, Jacksonville and those likes to really win more than 5 games at most? No, everyone understood they were rebuilding teams and they were going to let young guys play. Due to length of season, every NFL win is the equivalent of 5 NBA wins. The worst team in the league last year was the equivalent of a 3-12 NFL team. The worst team in the NFL is almost always 3-12 or worse. So why aren't people clamoring for reform in the NFL draft system? Comparatively, the worst NFL teams are almost always worse than the worse NBA teams, but the NFL system is fine. There's not worry of tanking there, even though when's the last time a non-Jaguars fan has watched the Jags play a game that wasn't against a team they like.

Jamiecballer
12-18-2014, 02:02 PM
Demar Derozan, Terrance Ross, and Jonas Valanciunas were all top 10 picks. Kyle Lowry was a smart signing, but let's say they were drafting 15th all those years because they fought to make the playoffs. Or let's say there was a wheel idea in place, where they were able to get one of those guys, but picked in the late teens or 20s the other years.

IMO, the wheel idea is absolutely horrible. Not all NBA drafts are created equal. Look at the nfl draft, while not every draft has great QBs or sure fire number 1, can't miss type guys, you're always getting a chance at really good players with the top pick. The NBA draft is completely different, the difference between a draft with Lebron or Anthony Davis going first is much different between a draft with Anthony Bennett or Andrea Bargniani going first. Now imagine the wheel system in place. You're a college freshman, and you're a really, really good player. You know you're a top 3 talent, and have a great shot at going first overall. This upcoming draft, Minnesota has the first pick, Milwaukee has the second pick, and a mid to largish market has the third pick, but then the next year, LA has the first pick and Boston or New York has the 2nd or 3rd pick. Guys would now have the ability to choose where they will be drafted. And even if players don't "pick" their destination, you still get the first overall pick once every 30 years. If you're unfortunate enough to get #1 in a really weak class, then tough crap. If you're a small market team, this is devastating. And if Anthony Davis comes out the year a championship or near championship contender as the first pick, then the rich get richer. Such a stupid proposal.
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me :shrugs:

Sactown
12-18-2014, 02:24 PM
Give the worst team the pick, who cares if there's tanking, hardly ever does the #1 pick result in a franchise changer..

The idea of giving the best team an equal shot is ridiculous, imagine if that Miami Heat team in the middle of their run landed Anthony Davis .. or if he ended up on the spurs or OKC..

To me that's why you give it to the worst team in the league, Anthony Davis as good as he is, doesn't make you a contender on a 12 win team.. however if he landed on Miami and they keep winning? LeBron probably stays and the league competitiveness just takes a huge hit

king4day
12-18-2014, 02:47 PM
While yes, giving every team a chance at a top pick would eliminate tanking, that's not as significant of an issue as the reasons behind a lottery.

1. Bad teams have a chance to improve their team with a potential marquee player.
2. Stars wind up on teams that struggle to attract big name talent.

Imagine when LeBron came out of HS and the Lakers won the draft? Now LAL is set for another 15 years and is a juggernaut while Cleveland remains a struggling franchise.

It's in the interest of fairness. If Philly wants to tank and acquire young assets, so be it. Their fans will suffer and ownership loses a lot of money.

2-ONE-5
12-18-2014, 02:51 PM
eh we dont lose money and attendance is shockingly up this year from what i have seen compared to last, not saying much though i know. but here in Philly fans are behind this for the most part and really enjoy seeing McDaniels/Noel/MCW and now even Covington who has been on a tear. Once Embiid suits up rather it be late this year or next, there will be a ton of buzz here, especially if Noel or McDaniels takes ROY this year

Sactown
12-18-2014, 02:52 PM
While yes, giving every team a chance at a top pick would eliminate tanking, that's not as significant of an issue as the reasons behind a lottery.

1. Bad teams have a chance to improve their team with a potential marquee player.
2. Stars wind up on teams that struggle to attract big name talent.

Imagine when LeBron came out of HS and the Lakers won the draft? Now LAL is set for another 15 years and is a juggernaut while Cleveland remains a struggling franchise.

It's in the interest of fairness. If Philly wants to tank and acquire young assets, so be it. Their fans will suffer and ownership loses a lot of money.

Idk why people freak out.. Anthony Davis is probably the best talent since LeBron and if you take him and stick him on the bottom 10 worst teams, I bet 8 of them don't make it to the playoffs and the other 2 are bounced in the first round ..

Tanking isn't that big of an issue, take a team like Phoenix who would turn into a very good team with an addition like AD, no way in hell can they lose more games than Philly or Minny or La even if they tried

Sssmush
12-19-2014, 06:24 AM
Give the worst team the pick, who cares if there's tanking, hardly ever does the #1 pick result in a franchise changer..

The idea of giving the best team an equal shot is ridiculous, imagine if that Miami Heat team in the middle of their run landed Anthony Davis .. or if he ended up on the spurs or OKC..

To me that's why you give it to the worst team in the league, Anthony Davis as good as he is, doesn't make you a contender on a 12 win team.. however if he landed on Miami and they keep winning? LeBron probably stays and the league competitiveness just takes a huge hit


But you contradict yourself. On the one hand, you say giving the "best" team a chance at the #1 pick would be a travesty, but on the other hand you say the #1 pick hardly ever results in a franchise player so who cares. But you are still totally fine with tanking just to maintain the status quo.

I don't get it.

Sssmush
12-19-2014, 06:29 AM
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me :shrugs:

Yep. I agree with you completely and I'm very glad you made this comment.

I mean since when does preventing a top college prospect from going to the Lakers at some point in the future constitute a reason for the league re-structuring itself? And why should a player coming out of college having some degree of choice where he ends up be such a big deal?

Sure competitive balance is cool, but this idea that every rule and every regulation has to set the scales against the Lakers no matter what is just absurd. Why can't the Lakers have the same theoretical chance for a top player as every other team in the league?

2-ONE-5
12-19-2014, 09:43 AM
i am now going to ask you for the THIRD time.....outside of the Sixers what other team is tanking?

crewfan13
12-19-2014, 10:56 AM
Yep. I agree with you completely and I'm very glad you made this comment.

I mean since when does preventing a top college prospect from going to the Lakers at some point in the future constitute a reason for the league re-structuring itself? And why should a player coming out of college having some degree of choice where he ends up be such a big deal?

Sure competitive balance is cool, but this idea that every rule and every regulation has to set the scales against the Lakers no matter what is just absurd. Why can't the Lakers have the same theoretical chance for a top player as every other team in the league?

Man its gotta be tough being a Lakers fan and having every rule in the league be set against you. I totally forgot the provision in the lottery that states the Lakers can never have a top pick.

I love how you fail to see the irony in what you're saying as well. You say the league doesn't need to restructure itself to prevent the big markets like LA from getting a top pick, but think the league needs to completely restructure the draft process because one team trading away all their talent for draft picks and put together a team of young upside guys and maybe some D-League level talent.

Like the guy above said, give some real examples besides the Sixers of teams that have gone into seasons planning on throwing the entire season for draft picks.

Shlumpledink
12-19-2014, 11:33 AM
The eastern conference is ruining the sport. The league needs to shrink down since the parity of the league sucks and having mediocre talent is considered being a playoff team. This inflates stats of players and teams in the eastern conference since they're playing the majority of their games against worse teams while the western conference is killing themselves

Arch Stanton
12-19-2014, 12:06 PM
If they take away the draft lottery then ultimately small market teams that cannot attract free agents and cannot improve in the draft will probably go away, because the fans will stop paying attention and stop going to the games. Maybe that's what the OP wants though, 8 NBA teams.

Jamiecballer
12-19-2014, 01:00 PM
Yep. I agree with you completely and I'm very glad you made this comment.

I mean since when does preventing a top college prospect from going to the Lakers at some point in the future constitute a reason for the league re-structuring itself? And why should a player coming out of college having some degree of choice where he ends up be such a big deal?

Sure competitive balance is cool, but this idea that every rule and every regulation has to set the scales against the Lakers no matter what is just absurd. Why can't the Lakers have the same theoretical chance for a top player as every other team in the league?

all i really meant was that i don't see those issues he raised as being a real cause for concern. a lot of things could happen, but improving the overall product is bigger than all of those "could haves".

specifically though, i don't see anybody risking serious injury to stay an extra year when they are already positioned to go at the top of the draft, simply in an attempt to determine where they go :shrugs:

gaughan333
12-20-2014, 01:57 AM
I usually hate the nba forum because it is filled with posts and responses of pre-adolescent children, but this thread or at least the idea of the OP is interesting to consider

Sssmush
12-20-2014, 05:47 AM
i am now going to ask you for the THIRD time.....outside of the Sixers what other team is tanking?

oh ok sorry, I saw your post but I thought you were being kind of rhetorical.

Honestly when this started was when Magic Johnson was saying the Lakers should tank and a lot of radio people were saying they were totally ok with teams tanking and I just really felt strongly the other way, that teams shouldn't tank and that tanking is terrible for the league and that the league should make it a priority to change the draft rules is tanking continues to be a problem.

Honestly I'd like to keep things on a positive note... and I'm sorry that I singled out the 76'rs in particular however that is the one team that everybody was pointing to that is intentionally doing everything it can to ensure that it finishes in teh bottom of the rankings and is therefore the dictionary example of "tanking".

Again, I want to keep things positive. I've been watching some games/highlights this week and I'm actually very impressed with the super high level of NBA competition on a nightly basis. San Antonio I think has played two multi-overtime games and everybody has just been balling... so me at my stupid keyboard typing on two Guinesses because I'm bored of wanking off is in no real position to say that the NBA sucks. I'm super stoked to see NBA action this week, holiday season 2014, feeling good about NBA action and I don't want to be negative.

You know, if you really want to know.... I mean maybe tanking is like HGH and people are getting off it before the media firestorm starts. It's cool, whatever, the main issue is that media folks aren't just saying uncontested that of course teams should tank. So my quarrel is more with media people who are all cool with tanking and promulgate that narrative rather than particular teams.

Last year, ok, I mean Utah, Milwaukee, Boston, Charlotte and Orlando were all teams that *appeared* to be keeping their eye on the standings and making sure they didn't improve down the stretch. Ok? Just my opinion.

Minnesota and the Lakers I leave off this list because they seemed to be battling for every game down the stretch even though local radio was absolutely pounding them that every win was counter-productive and what the hell is their problem trying to win games. I feel this is a really crucial distinction for the Lakers because of what the Lakers mean in LA, from Venice to Riverside, from Long Beach to Pasadena, and I never felt that the Lakers tanked. Sure I can understand that fans dreamed of getting the #1 pick and bringing in an 18 year old Wiggins and that could be great for the league... but clearly D'Antoni was battling for every game and went down with the ship admirably, and Jim and Mitch sent him out there to battle despite what radio people said and it was fun. This year Kobe is back and they probably get 30+ wins and might even make the playoffs if they get hot down the stretch.

btw I love the Rondo trade the Mavs made. I love the idea of Rondo playing there and for the first time EVER I am a bandwagon Mavs fan.

chitownbulls
12-20-2014, 06:41 AM
So all non-playoff teams have an equal shot at 1-14 picks?

I like that idea.

Love this idea

MILLERHIGHLIFE
12-20-2014, 08:29 AM
oh ok sorry, I saw your post but I thought you were being kind of rhetorical.

Honestly when this started was when Magic Johnson was saying the Lakers should tank and a lot of radio people were saying they were totally ok with teams tanking and I just really felt strongly the other way, that teams shouldn't tank and that tanking is terrible for the league and that the league should make it a priority to change the draft rules is tanking continues to be a problem.

Honestly I'd like to keep things on a positive note... and I'm sorry that I singled out the 76'rs in particular however that is the one team that everybody was pointing to that is intentionally doing everything it can to ensure that it finishes in teh bottom of the rankings and is therefore the dictionary example of "tanking".

Again, I want to keep things positive. I've been watching some games/highlights this week and I'm actually very impressed with the super high level of NBA competition on a nightly basis. San Antonio I think has played two multi-overtime games and everybody has just been balling... so me at my stupid keyboard typing on two Guinesses because I'm bored of wanking off is in no real position to say that the NBA sucks. I'm super stoked to see NBA action this week, holiday season 2014, feeling good about NBA action and I don't want to be negative.

You know, if you really want to know.... I mean maybe tanking is like HGH and people are getting off it before the media firestorm starts. It's cool, whatever, the main issue is that media folks aren't just saying uncontested that of course teams should tank. So my quarrel is more with media people who are all cool with tanking and promulgate that narrative rather than particular teams.

Last year, ok, I mean Utah, Milwaukee, Boston, Charlotte and Orlando were all teams that *appeared* to be keeping their eye on the standings and making sure they didn't improve down the stretch. Ok? Just my opinion.

Minnesota and the Lakers I leave off this list because they seemed to be battling for every game down the stretch even though local radio was absolutely pounding them that every win was counter-productive and what the hell is their problem trying to win games. I feel this is a really crucial distinction for the Lakers because of what the Lakers mean in LA, from Venice to Riverside, from Long Beach to Pasadena, and I never felt that the Lakers tanked. Sure I can understand that fans dreamed of getting the #1 pick and bringing in an 18 year old Wiggins and that could be great for the league... but clearly D'Antoni was battling for every game and went down with the ship admirably, and Jim and Mitch sent him out there to battle despite what radio people said and it was fun. This year Kobe is back and they probably get 30+ wins and might even make the playoffs if they get hot down the stretch.

btw I love the Rondo trade the Mavs made. I love the idea of Rondo playing there and for the first time EVER I am a bandwagon Mavs fan. Don't be putting Bucks in the tank corner. Bucks had the most injuries last season.



Games played 2013/14

Sanders 23
Ilyasova 55
Mayo 52
Zaza 53
Henson 70
Wolters 58
Udoh 42
Knight 72
Raduljica 48
Giannis 77
Middleton 82

Middleton was only player that played all season. Also did the trade of Neal and Ridnour for Sessions and Adrien. Yeah buying out Butler mid season looked like a tank move but by then we had no chance of playoffs. Even though we had the most over time games played last season. It's not like we purged the roster and had D-League players and losing by 20 every night. Also we had lots of free agents before the season so it took time to gel. Figure we let Ellis walk. Did the sign and trade of JJ Redick. Sign and trade of Jennings for Knight and Middleton. Traded Moute. Traded for Butler and Ridnour. Signed Mayo and Neal and Zaza. On paper that looked like 8th seed all the way from previous regime in the weak east. Bucks had a 2-2 start with Wolters starting since Knight and Ridnour were injured from preseason.

Vinylman
12-20-2014, 11:04 AM
haha ... all of you are engaging the circular logic philosopher known as smushie...

tanking is a reality under the new cba because franchises have the profitability back stop of revenue sharing ... it is socialism at its finest...

additionally, tanking is as valid of a "hope" marketing technique as signing upper tier FA's... both approaches provide hope to fan bases. Whether they are successful or not is another matter...

At the end of the day roster enhancement (tanking) is a commentary on the dilution of talent in the league which is only going to get worse if the planned expansion occurs

Sssmush
12-20-2014, 09:44 PM
haha ... all of you are engaging the circular logic philosopher known as smushie...

tanking is a reality under the new cba because franchises have the profitability back stop of revenue sharing ... it is socialism at its finest...

additionally, tanking is as valid of a "hope" marketing technique as signing upper tier FA's... both approaches provide hope to fan bases. Whether they are successful or not is another matter...

At the end of the day roster enhancement (tanking) is a commentary on the dilution of talent in the league which is only going to get worse if the planned expansion occurs


LoL well I'd hardly call most NBA owners "socialists," however whether we are considering things in terms of raw capitalism and how much profit the one guy at the top will make, or through the lens of a more cooperative, group-synergistic cyber-socialism where everybody works together to tap into the unlimited profit potential for everybody that the league represents, what matters is that the product (games) is as good as possible.

Structurally, the league is somewhat disadvantaged because of having so many teams and so many games each year, which probably leads to the tendency of so many players (for instance Melo) to routinely miss 20 or so games every year with fairly minor and/or nonspecific injuries. So if you then throw "tanking" into the mix it's possible that a huge proportion of NBA games after the All Star game could become not worth watching or not even worth reporting on or gambling on.

Which is a problem for the league because you risk over-saturating the market with a sub-par or mediocre product. This is why the suggestions about how the English soccer league does things are interesting. I mean I don't know anything about how that works... to me it looks like they play for the world championship over there every two weeks, like Manchester loses 20 games then wins the European Worlds, then Liverpool beats Madrid (?) in the Mr Universe contest, and then Ronaldo on loan from Brazil to Liverpool beats Manchester the next week in the quarterfinals of the All European awesomeness league or something. I mean I have no fn idea what is going on over there. But they do seem to have some kind of tiers or hierarchies within their league so it isn't just a huge flat blob of mediocrity with 4-8 good teams in the middle.

Sssmush
12-20-2014, 10:00 PM
Don't be putting Bucks in the tank corner. Bucks had the most injuries last season.



Games played 2013/14

Sanders 23
Ilyasova 55
Mayo 52
Zaza 53
Henson 70
Wolters 58
Udoh 42
Knight 72
Raduljica 48
Giannis 77
Middleton 82

Middleton was only player that played all season. Also did the trade of Neal and Ridnour for Sessions and Adrien. Yeah buying out Butler mid season looked like a tank move but by then we had no chance of playoffs. Even though we had the most over time games played last season. It's not like we purged the roster and had D-League players and losing by 20 every night. Also we had lots of free agents before the season so it took time to gel. Figure we let Ellis walk. Did the sign and trade of JJ Redick. Sign and trade of Jennings for Knight and Middleton. Traded Moute. Traded for Butler and Ridnour. Signed Mayo and Neal and Zaza. On paper that looked like 8th seed all the way from previous regime in the weak east. Bucks had a 2-2 start with Wolters starting since Knight and Ridnour were injured from preseason.

Yeah sorry if I was being unfair to Milwaukee. I don't follow the Bucks that closely... I did hear various people mention that they were a lock for the worst record down the stretch... like even if Philly lost 40 games in a row Milwaukee would still be waiting for them at the end 4 games worse than they were. So it just never seemed like anybody was saying that Milwaukee was planning on winning a lot of games.

I mean they might just really be struggling as a franchise and for whatever reason be stuck far below the median level of NBA competence... hopefully the new players will change that as they develop. It does seem like their division is pretty tough... even Detroit is probably a tough win night in and night out, so even though people say the East is so weak and how do you not make the top 8... I mean I can see that it is a struggle for all these teams to fight their way out of the pack.

It's just all so much more interesting to me if I know that teams have no incentive to tank down the stretch.
Then it's like the NFL. I mean Washington just beat Philly to get their 4th win of the season and you know it meant so much to them. They fought like maniacs just for the pride and accomplishment of adding one more win to their record in the second to the last game of a lost season. I really wanted Philly to win that game but I gotta say that all these games are top notch epic battles.

Sssmush
12-20-2014, 10:10 PM
and especially I want to know that the COACHES are trying everything they can to win. That even if they are a definite lottery team they are still trying to out-strategize the other coaches.

Like I hate it that the coaches get their butts kicked and kind of always give themselves the excuse. I mean sure if your team is young and you are developing players then yeah you are going to lose a lot, but at the same time you've got guys who were straight up stars in college and high draft picks, so if you are coaching them well you should have some amazing wins now and then. Seriously, in an 82 game season even the very worst team should have a handful of amazing wins where they shot 80% from the field and made a ton of 3's and beat the Spurs or Cleveland or whatever. I mean you've GOT players. It cracks me up coaches or GMs or media say teams just don't have the players or talent to win now or compete and if you look at their roster everybody is a first team collegiate all american and a Mcdonald's high school 1st teamer and all this. So if some schlumpy coach goes out there and loses 80 games in a row I mean maybe he should just try not coaching or something... like just let the team coach itself and they will probably do better.

kobe4thewinbang
12-20-2014, 11:25 PM
Fully agree with you. Glad you got it off your chest. Imagine if both conferences were as crazy as the western conference is right now! Sure, there will be some lesser teams but PARITY IS VERY MUCH NEEDED.

2-ONE-5
12-21-2014, 01:38 PM
and especially I want to know that the COACHES are trying everything they can to win. That even if they are a definite lottery team they are still trying to out-strategize the other coaches.

Like I hate it that the coaches get their butts kicked and kind of always give themselves the excuse. I mean sure if your team is young and you are developing players then yeah you are going to lose a lot, but at the same time you've got guys who were straight up stars in college and high draft picks, so if you are coaching them well you should have some amazing wins now and then. Seriously, in an 82 game season even the very worst team should have a handful of amazing wins where they shot 80% from the field and made a ton of 3's and beat the Spurs or Cleveland or whatever. I mean you've GOT players. It cracks me up coaches or GMs or media say teams just don't have the players or talent to win now or compete and if you look at their roster everybody is a first team collegiate all american and a Mcdonald's high school 1st teamer and all this. So if some schlumpy coach goes out there and loses 80 games in a row I mean maybe he should just try not coaching or something... like just let the team coach itself and they will probably do better.

lol at thinking any team is ever going to shoot 80% for a game and during all this rambling non-sense did you forget the Sixers opened last season by beating the Heat and Bulls while both were at full strength?

cahawk
12-21-2014, 01:43 PM
Of course Silver claims no teams are tanking but GM's & owners probably are.
Remember how the Seattle Sonics new owner traded away their best players for draft picks and made sure team did poorly as the pretext for moving the team.

Mr.B
12-21-2014, 04:29 PM
I agree, I don't understand why teams tank. I mean I can understand the chance to land a top player but there are other ways to get top players. Trades for example. Championship caliber teams can be built through trades without the team having to tank. Plus when a player is acquired through a trade that player is more than likely already developed or is well into the process of developing his game. Look at the number of 50 win seasons the Mavs have had over the last 12 years. And building a team through trades has led them to 2 Finals appearances with one win. Now a team might end up with a Tim Duncan or Labron James but those players are extremely rare.

2-ONE-5
12-21-2014, 05:36 PM
you have to have assets to make a trade and the player still has to want to play there. There year after the Sixers went to game 7 of the semis we had a deal for Howard but he told us he wasnt going to resign here which is how we ended up with Bynum, the person responsible for our current tank. The Mavs drafted a superstar player thats why they were able to get players wanting to play in Dallas.

Sssmush
12-22-2014, 03:13 AM
you have to have assets to make a trade and the player still has to want to play there. There year after the Sixers went to game 7 of the semis we had a deal for Howard but he told us he wasnt going to resign here which is how we ended up with Bynum, the person responsible for our current tank. The Mavs drafted a superstar player thats why they were able to get players wanting to play in Dallas.

So.... Philly should keep tanking? Is that your point? LoL Philly can take for the next 100 years as far as I'm concerned but you'll never convince me it's good for the league.

Sorry. I mean we can break down the structural issues of how the league could be balanced so that weak teams could get better players and so forth, but no matter how we frame that problem the best solution will never be for teams that want to improve to string together 82 game seasons of intentionally not trying to compete.

Sssmush
12-22-2014, 03:21 AM
lol at thinking any team is ever going to shoot 80% for a game and during all this rambling non-sense did you forget the Sixers opened last season by beating the Heat and Bulls while both were at full strength?

Ok, and then after that they went 17-63 despite playing in what is widely regarded as a pathetically weak Eastern conference.

An Eastern conference where the "dominant" Miami Heat (who beat the "dominant" Pacers in the playoffs) if they were in the Western Conference probably would've lost in the first round of the playoffs regardless of playoff seeding or who they played.

Miami wasn't even challenged in the East playoffs, yet likely would've lost 4-2 to any of Portland, Memphis, Clippers, San Antonio, Dallas, Golden State and maybe even Houston in the first round.

But Philly can beat two of the "top" Eastern teams coming out of the gate, and then turn around lose 63 games while playing an Eastern conference schedule. I mean people talked a lot of smack about the Lakers last year, the Lakers would've been like a 4 seed in the East, why don't we talk about how ridiculous the 76'rs have been for a couple years now?

2-ONE-5
12-22-2014, 09:52 AM
Ok, and then after that they went 17-63 despite playing in what is widely regarded as a pathetically weak Eastern conference.

An Eastern conference where the "dominant" Miami Heat (who beat the "dominant" Pacers in the playoffs) if they were in the Western Conference probably would've lost in the first round of the playoffs regardless of playoff seeding or who they played.

Miami wasn't even challenged in the East playoffs, yet likely would've lost 4-2 to any of Portland, Memphis, Clippers, San Antonio, Dallas, Golden State and maybe even Houston in the first round.

But Philly can beat two of the "top" Eastern teams coming out of the gate, and then turn around lose 63 games while playing an Eastern conference schedule. I mean people talked a lot of smack about the Lakers last year, the Lakers would've been like a 4 seed in the East, why don't we talk about how ridiculous the 76'rs have been for a couple years now?

lol bcuz it hasnt been for a couple of years now. like i said many posts ago it has been like 100 games into this rebuild. 2 years ago we stunk due to the Bynum mess but that had nothing to do with this rebuild, like i said it caused the rebuild to happen due to the previous FO being awful

2-ONE-5
12-22-2014, 09:54 AM
Ok, and then after that they went 17-63 despite playing in what is widely regarded as a pathetically weak Eastern conference.

An Eastern conference where the "dominant" Miami Heat (who beat the "dominant" Pacers in the playoffs) if they were in the Western Conference probably would've lost in the first round of the playoffs regardless of playoff seeding or who they played.

Miami wasn't even challenged in the East playoffs, yet likely would've lost 4-2 to any of Portland, Memphis, Clippers, San Antonio, Dallas, Golden State and maybe even Houston in the first round.

But Philly can beat two of the "top" Eastern teams coming out of the gate, and then turn around lose 63 games while playing an Eastern conference schedule. I mean people talked a lot of smack about the Lakers last year, the Lakers would've been like a 4 seed in the East, why don't we talk about how ridiculous the 76'rs have been for a couple years now?

not everyone can make the playoffs, every trade can't make both teams better.