PDA

View Full Version : Roundtable discussion: Minimizing Tanking



warfelg
12-13-2015, 03:13 PM
So I was having a discussion with some friends last night and why the competitive balance in the NBA was so terrible. We reasoned that the NBA has about the worst CBA when it comes to player movement and allowing bad teams to get better and good teams to eventually fall.

So I was interested in what other ideas out there were. Try to leave discussion about specific teams/situations out of the discussion, as this is more overall than individual team based.

Personally here's what I would do:
~IMO the soft cap/luxury tax is about the worst thing. Some owners would rather pay for the tax if it means more income from having a good product on the court. This is such an antiquated system. I would turn the Soft Cap into a HARD CAP.

~In addition to a hard cap, to make a "franchise player" exception. With this distinction, every team has the option of taking one player, paying a player a max+30% rate (35% if they are remaining with the same team), and their number doesn't count against the cap. Example: Cavs extend this to LeBron this offseason his contract would be good for $30mil per year. This would NOT count against a (lowered) hard cap.

~Allow teams to cut a player with a 40% dead money penalty. This will force them to be careful with contract in the first place, and allow them to easier move on from a mistake. I think this is one of the hardest things about the NBA. If you screw up a signing you hurt your team for far past it. As a side note: The full contract value is still guaranteed, it's a matter of the cap hit. Another thing to go with this: a player cut cannot have an AAV greater than 75% of his previous contract. Example: You have a player making $10mil AAV. You cut him an $4mil stays on the book, and his next contract can't have a higher AAV of greater than $7.5mil.

~To balance the cuts and new franchise player rules: DA changing teams can sign a player for up to 5 years, staying with the same team up to 6 years.

~Extend the lottery to the 14 non-playoff teams as well as the 2 8 seeds. No longer will there be a team trying to miss the playoffs on purpose.

~No more odds by placement. Teams will be Tiered into 4 groupings of 4. Everyone in that tier will have the same odds at a top 3 pick.

~So drawing for #1 pick happens. Tier 1 is the 4 worst teams. Total of 70% shot at the #1 pick, divided so each team has a 17.5% shot at it. Tier 2 is teams 5-8, with a 15% chance divided up at 3.75%. Tier 3 is 9-12, 2.5% chance, 5% each. Tier 4 is 13-16, 10%, 1.25% odds.

~Drawing for pick #2. Same deal with the tiers, but chances are changes so tier 1 has a better shot. Split of 52.5/27.5/12.5/7.5 in each tier.

~Drawing for pick #3. Same as before, but again, skew the odds even more so a tier 1 team has the best odds. 40/30/20/10 odds for each tier.

~If you don't land a top 3 pick, teams are automatically ranked based on record from picks 4-16.

~If you are in the same tier for 3 straight years, on the 4th year you automatically drop a tier, and you are fined up to $5mil. This allows some play for injuries to young players, or lack of development up to a certain extent.

So in the end what this does:
It balances out power by not allowing teams to just pay the tax to keep players. A hard cap would force teams to have to let players go in order to stay under the cap. The draft reform takes away the desire to miss on the playoffs, and it also takes away the need to be the actual worst team in the NBA for the best odds.

So thoughts on these changes or your own system for reform?

hugepatsfan
12-13-2015, 03:27 PM
I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of the max contract. Because then it reduces the incentive to "team up" with other stars. Right now the money is the same whether you sign on as a face of a franchise or team up with others. I think you'd see less players teaming up if they were turning down tens of millions to do so.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 03:32 PM
I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of the max contract. Because then it reduces the incentive to "team up" with other stars. Right now the money is the same whether you sign on as a face of a franchise or team up with others. I think you'd see less players teaming up if they were turning down tens of millions to do so.

That doesn't really help eliminate tanking though. All that does is allow teams and players to be paid whatever they want. Stars will still team up.

JEDean89
12-13-2015, 03:44 PM
fixing the draft is simple. just make it so that whoever wins the lottery gets a reduction of odds if they are in the lottery again the next year. it resets each year a team doesn't win the lottery. winning the lottery means getting into the top 3, and each seed 1-3 will have a weighted reduction. So if a team like the Lakers won the 2nd seed last year, this year, they would have a slight reduction of around 5% from their odds of winning again next year, which is then redistributed to all the teams that didn't win the lottery the year before that are in it this year. You could make it only apply to teams in the top 5.

So basically, if you want to tank, you can't repeatedly win the lottery, or at least your odds are greatly reduced and you are suddenly helping other teams win it. If you are a ****** team, you still would be guaranteed a top pick, just not the 1-3.

It would be a slight odds reduction so if a team wins the #1 pick, and is the worst team the next year, they'd still have a good shot at getting the top pick (17.5% or so), and top 3 overall. But if they win twice in a row, they'd have like a 10% chance if they were the worst team again the next year. And whenever they finally lose the lotto, they reset their odds, and go back to normal. The only cons are that odds would have to be calculated each year.

This just makes the most sense. The overall weight reduction wasn't favorable to small market teams trying to rebuild through the draft. This one keeps the weights, allowing teams to tank and keep it viable, but prevents a team like the 76ers who have basically said they will be the worst team until they get a transcendent talent.

nycericanguy
12-13-2015, 03:51 PM
Competitive balance right now isn't bad at all. Really there aren't many HORRIBLE teams in the league that are not competitive besides PHI. But that's because PHI is the one team that isn't even trying. If they at least tried I'm sure they could have a few more wins.

The Lakers are the only other horrible team but they at least tried. They signed Hibbert, Lou, MWP, Huertas, and Bass this offseason.

But the NBA is a game where 1 player can change a franchise and dominate for years, so you're never going to have MLB type competitive balance.

Perhaps there should be a HARD salary floor, not a soft one like there is now. Perhaps you can limit how many picks a team has every year? It's not just about trying to get the top pick, teams like PHI are trying to get many picks and in the process they give up guys that could help them win short term.

JEDean89
12-13-2015, 03:54 PM
FA is the hardest thing for a CBA to control, but I honestly think there is more parity in the league than ever, outside of the warriors. The 10th seed in the East is 3.5 games back from the #1 seed. The Warriors, Heat, Mavs and Celtics broke the tradition of the Lakers and Spurs winning each year. Small market teams are at the top of each conference, and there are young talents in this league left and right. I think we are entering the Golden Age of modern basketball, which will bring forth more video game talents like Curry, Durant and Anthony Davis, from all corners of the world. We are already seeing how deep each draft has been, and while we still haven't seen a class like 03', there have been far deeper classes like the 2011 draft, which must have harbored 15+ starting talents + names like Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Alec Burks, Bagdonovic, the morris twins, derrick williams, monteijunas, norris cole and others. Like straight up over 20 quality players from that one draft.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 03:54 PM
fixing the draft is simple. just make it so that whoever wins the lottery gets a reduction of odds if they are in the lottery again the next year. it resets each year a team doesn't win the lottery. winning the lottery means getting into the top 3, and each seed 1-3 will have a weighted reduction. So if a team like the Lakers won the 2nd seed last year, this year, they would have a slight reduction of around 5% from their odds of winning again next year, which is then redistributed to all the teams that didn't win the lottery the year before that are in it this year. You could make it only apply to teams in the top 5.

So basically, if you want to tank, you can't repeatedly win the lottery, or at least your odds are greatly reduced and you are suddenly helping other teams win it. If you are a ****** team, you still would be guaranteed a top pick, just not the 1-3.

It would be a slight odds reduction so if a team wins the #1 pick, and is the worst team the next year, they'd still have a good shot at getting the top pick (17.5% or so), and top 3 overall. But if they win twice in a row, they'd have like a 10% chance if they were the worst team again the next year. And whenever they finally lose the lotto, they reset their odds, and go back to normal. The only cons are that odds would have to be calculated each year.

This just makes the most sense. The overall weight reduction wasn't favorable to small market teams trying to rebuild through the draft. This one keeps the weights, allowing teams to tank and keep it viable, but prevents a team like the 76ers who have basically said they will be the worst team until they get a transcendent talent.

How do you redistribute the odds taken away? Even divide? Give them all to the next team? Divide them by the next few teams?

JEDean89
12-13-2015, 04:13 PM
^^^ that would be negligable, but ideally, you apply it everyone else based on their seeds. With the highest teams that didn't win the previous years lotto receiving maybe a 3-4 % boost to their own odds, depending on how the dominoes fall. The 14th seed would still have really low odds, and the higher seeds still win, but this should have prevented the Cavs from winning 3 out of 4 years.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 04:22 PM
^^^ that would be negligable, but ideally, you apply it everyone else based on their seeds. With the highest teams that didn't win the previous years lotto receiving maybe a 3-4 % boost to their own odds, depending on how the dominoes fall. The 14th seed would still have really low odds, and the higher seeds still win, but this should have prevented the Cavs from winning 3 out of 4 years.

So if say, Milwaukee won the lotto this year you would take away 5% of their odds for the next year, say reducing odds from 10% to 5%? Or would it be a 5% reduction of that number? Because if you take away 5% o their odds number, starting a 7th, you would end up with negative odds.

I'm not questioning or trying to put down your idea, rather just better understand.

KnicksorBust
12-13-2015, 04:23 PM
I still love the idea of elimination wins. The team with the most wins after they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs would get the #1 pick. This would force the bad teams to try and win as many games as possible at the end of the season. Isn't that the whole point?

warfelg
12-13-2015, 04:29 PM
Also to all the comments on "leave FA change the draft".

Personally, I think changing only the draft would keep bad teams bad. I mean, if you aren't going to find a way to try to help balance quality players, then you can really end up screwing a team that basically has to build through the draft.

Take the Lakers. Randle broke his leg in the first game of the year. What if they were denied a top 3 pick again, where the only reason they might have been there again is because a player getting hurt? I know it's not as simple as that, but there is much more to it than just hurting bad teams in the draft. I think that changing the landscape of FA also helps discourage tanking by making more quality players available to teams.

da ThRONe
12-13-2015, 04:29 PM
Fixing the tanking issues need to be fair for teams that aren't good. Things like reducing their chances of winning or a winner take all tournament only makes bad teams worse.

The first thing as mentioned is changing the max contracts rules. Personally I think just getting rid of them altogether is best.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 04:35 PM
Fixing the tanking issues need to be fair for teams that aren't good. Things like reducing their chances of winning or a winner take all tournament only makes bad teams worse.

The first thing as mentioned is changing the max contracts rules. Personally I think just getting rid of them altogether is best.

Well here's my question with that:
You got some teams that don't mind being in the tax. What's to prevent that owner from basically saying "screw it"? I mean, the owner of the Warriors under that could realistically pay Curry/Thompson/Green whatever he wants, keep Barnes happy, and fill out the remainder with whatever. I mean it's basically what the Heat did right? Payed Bosh, Wade, LeBron to take up all the cap, and filled out the remainder with whatever. 4 finals trips in 4 years, and 2 championships.

Again this doesn't really help bad teams IMO. If Gilbert were happy to pay the tax, would Love rather have $20 mil AAV to play with LeBron or $30 mil AAV to play in LA without much help?

da ThRONe
12-13-2015, 04:57 PM
Well here's my question with that:
You got some teams that don't mind being in the tax. What's to prevent that owner from basically saying "screw it"? I mean, the owner of the Warriors under that could realistically pay Curry/Thompson/Green whatever he wants, keep Barnes happy, and fill out the remainder with whatever. I mean it's basically what the Heat did right? Payed Bosh, Wade, LeBron to take up all the cap, and filled out the remainder with whatever. 4 finals trips in 4 years, and 2 championships.

Again this doesn't really help bad teams IMO. If Gilbert were happy to pay the tax, would Love rather have $20 mil AAV to play with LeBron or $30 mil AAV to play in LA without much help?

Well I'd install a firm cap. So teams wouldn't be able to exceed a certain amount.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 05:02 PM
Well I'd install a firm cap. So teams wouldn't be able to exceed a certain amount.

That's kinda what I'm thinking, but with 1 player allowed to be outside the cap. So if you have a $70 mil hard cap, that's for 14 players and you can have 1 outside of it. That way Warriors/Cavs/whoever can pay their main guy $30 mil, outside the cap, and be able to keep a few key supporting guys.

basketballkitty
12-13-2015, 05:36 PM
Warfelg...I sent you a private message.

Saddletramp
12-13-2015, 09:23 PM
Want to end tanking? Every five years, the team with the lowest winning percentage over that period automatically gets sold at a fair price and relocated and/or rebranded at the new owners discretion. No billion dollar bidding, either. Have it capped at around what the franchise is valued at or no more than 10% at what the departing owner paid for it.


But seriously (and I'm being serious but I know that'll never happen), there needs to be a hard cap. $100 million per team. That's $3 billion over 450 players league wide at about $6.66 (👹!) per player. With rookie caps (that might have to be lowered) and max player caps (25%, so $25M), there's plenty of room to dole out money. Can't afford a guy? Tough.


Blah, that probably has holes in it, too. I like some of the ideas presented in the OP but I doubt they'd get signed off on from both the League and the NBAPA.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 09:38 PM
Want to end tanking? Every five years, the team with the lowest winning percentage over that period automatically gets sold at a fair price and relocated and/or rebranded at the new owners discretion. No billion dollar bidding, either. Have it capped at around what the franchise is valued at or no more than 10% at what the departing owner paid for it.


But seriously (and I'm being serious but I know that'll never happen), there needs to be a hard cap. $100 million per team. That's $3 billion over 450 players league wide at about $6.66 (👹!) per player. With rookie caps (that might have to be lowered) and max player caps (25%, so $25M), there's plenty of room to dole out money. Can't afford a guy? Tough.


Blah, that probably has holes in it, too. I like some of the ideas presented in the OP but I doubt they'd get signed off on from both the League and the NBAPA.

I think the biggest issue is with the owners TBH. They wouldn't want to give up the cash flux that can be had with being a championship contending team. It's almost worth it to pay the tax to keep contending.

Jamiecballer
12-13-2015, 10:07 PM
Tanking is very easy to end. It's called pre-determined draft positions. Seriously, problem solved.

hugepatsfan
12-13-2015, 10:42 PM
That doesn't really help eliminate tanking though. All that does is allow teams and players to be paid whatever they want. Stars will still team up.

The reason why teams tank is because you need star talent to win. So the teams that know they have no chance of attracting that in FA tank to get that player through the draft. If you get rid of the max contract, then those teams can woo players with money and not feel like they have to tank. Instead they can try to be good and convince a player that they offer him a chance to win along with the huge money. Obviously doesn't eliminate tanking but it would help.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 10:54 PM
The reason why teams tank is because you need star talent to win. So the teams that know they have no chance of attracting that in FA tank to get that player through the draft. If you get rid of the max contract, then those teams can woo players with money and not feel like they have to tank. Instead they can try to be good and convince a player that they offer him a chance to win along with the huge money. Obviously doesn't eliminate tanking but it would help.

I just don't see it helping. If Gilbert doesn't mind being in the tax, why would Love chose LA over Cleveland? Cleveland has the better team, better players, better chance at a ring.

That's the ting IMO, is some owners don't give two thoughts about paying the tax if they thing they can win a ring. And honestly, why should they? But you you take that part out of the question and instill a hard cap, things change.

What if it came down to this for Cleveland: Love or Thompson/JR Smith?
What if it came down to this for Golden State: Klay/Iggy or Barnes/Green?

It suddenly makes players available, and if you also do a hefty fine for not reaching a salary floor, you are putting good teams in FA, and making bad teams spend money.

Now what it wouldn't stop is something like LAL signing a bunch of bench guys to overpriced contracts to meet the minimum. But if teams like Philly, LAL, or other bad teams had cap, had to spend a certain amount, and guys like Green, Thompson, or any other player that was paid by a team going massively into the tax this year were FA's and couldn't go to their former team because they couldn't afford to pay them, bed teams have a chance to improve quicker.

KnicksorBust
12-13-2015, 11:18 PM
Tanking is very easy to end. It's called pre-determined draft positions. Seriously, problem solved.

That makes is so grotesquely hard for bad teams to turn it around. Hate that idea.

JEDean89
12-13-2015, 11:18 PM
So if say, Milwaukee won the lotto this year you would take away 5% of their odds for the next year, say reducing odds from 10% to 5%? Or would it be a 5% reduction of that number? Because if you take away 5% o their odds number, starting a 7th, you would end up with negative odds.

I'm not questioning or trying to put down your idea, rather just better understand.

you could make it so that you would only have their odds reduced if they are in the bottom 5 again. so that odds couldn't go negative. the numbers don't matter specifically, the nba could figure it out. the point is a penalty to teams that are in the bottom 3 consecutive years. it allows teams to tank, but not to all out tank over multiple years. remember, teams could still get top 3 consecutively, just becomes much less likely.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 11:24 PM
you could make it so that you would only have their odds reduced if they are in the bottom 5 again. so that odds couldn't go negative. the numbers don't matter specifically, the nba could figure it out. the point is a penalty to teams that are in the bottom 3 consecutive years. it allows teams to tank, but not to all out tank over multiple years. remember, teams could still get top 3 consecutively, just becomes much less likely.

I dunno. Maybe the 3rd year. To much can go wrong outside a teams hands in 1 year to penalize them like that.

warfelg
12-13-2015, 11:31 PM
That makes is so grotesquely hard for bad teams to turn it around. Hate that idea.

Agreed. Fixed wheel draft or whatever, just sets up bad teams to keep being bad. Basically cycle into the top 5 every 6 years and 1st pick every 30 years. That's a hard sell because not all drafts are created the same. So what if I pick #1 in a bad draft and was the 3rd worst team in the NBA, then the next year the recently crowned champs get pick #1 with a once in a generation talent. And worse yet, what if that talent was a freshman and could declare they year I had the #1 pick, but he stayed in school so he could end up with a great team? Too much talent manipulation can happen to ever make the wheel feasible.

hugepatsfan
12-14-2015, 12:58 AM
I just don't see it helping. If Gilbert doesn't mind being in the tax, why would Love chose LA over Cleveland? Cleveland has the better team, better players, better chance at a ring.

That's the ting IMO, is some owners don't give two thoughts about paying the tax if they thing they can win a ring. And honestly, why should they? But you you take that part out of the question and instill a hard cap, things change.

What if it came down to this for Cleveland: Love or Thompson/JR Smith?
What if it came down to this for Golden State: Klay/Iggy or Barnes/Green?

It suddenly makes players available, and if you also do a hefty fine for not reaching a salary floor, you are putting good teams in FA, and making bad teams spend money.

Now what it wouldn't stop is something like LAL signing a bunch of bench guys to overpriced contracts to meet the minimum. But if teams like Philly, LAL, or other bad teams had cap, had to spend a certain amount, and guys like Green, Thompson, or any other player that was paid by a team going massively into the tax this year were FA's and couldn't go to their former team because they couldn't afford to pay them, bed teams have a chance to improve quicker.

I should have specified that I mean the removal of a max contract and to make it a hard cap.

hugepatsfan
12-14-2015, 01:02 AM
I also think that the whole lottery system encourages tanking more than just going by record would. You'd still have tanking among the absolute worst teams but not as much beyond that as you do now. Right now, the #7 worst team has a chance at #1 so there's incentive for them to tank to #4 or #5 to try and get a better chance at winning the lottery for a generational talent. If you just go by record, then there's no reason for that #7 team to try and tank.

Munkeysuit
12-14-2015, 01:26 AM
Realistically, there is nothing you can really do to minimize or do away with tanking because there is no absolute evidence it even exists, I mean really, are we going to penalize organizations for being bad? I think its way easier to accept the fact that these organizations or teams just don't have the personnel in place to produce anything positive. Most of these bad teams (outside of the Lakers) don't even have the money to even "buy" talent or the success to attract any star talent.
I personally feel that we just need to let things happen the way they are now, I have yet to witness a professional sports team get ahead and win anything significant by tanking...sure they got top picks in the draft, but with the NBA's lottery system, being the worst team doesn't even guarantee you "THE" top pick! so I am not so sure losing on purpose really puts any organization in a position to succeed as soon as possible.

hornetsfansydne
12-14-2015, 02:42 AM
I've seen some good ideas in this thread but the main problem with most is that it seems to take money away from players or will restrict movement. Why would the players or union agree to that? Makes no sense for a player and if they don't agree none of this sort of thing will change. I see some of them may want to end tanking but it really doesn't affect them as long as they still get paid

For some change to occur there needs to be some work from both sides and that will be incredibly difficult

warfelg
12-14-2015, 09:45 AM
I've seen some good ideas in this thread but the main problem with most is that it seems to take money away from players or will restrict movement. Why would the players or union agree to that? Makes no sense for a player and if they don't agree none of this sort of thing will change. I see some of them may want to end tanking but it really doesn't affect them as long as they still get paid

For some change to occur there needs to be some work from both sides and that will be incredibly difficult

Well here's my counter to that point:
We aren't really "taking" money from players with a hard cap. We're more shifting around where they get it from. To me a big problem of the NBA is there's a $70mil cap. The only teams under that cap are: Indiana ($68.9), Sacramento ($69.1), Orlando ($68.1), Denver ($66.9), Utah ($60.2), Philadelphia ($57.3), Portland ($40.5).

On the flip side, the luxury tax is $84.74 mil. There are 10 teams in the Luxury Tax. They are Houston ($84.82), Detroit ($85.86), San Antonio ($87.1), Chicago ($88.99), Brooklyn ($90.6), Miami ($91.2), Golden State ($93.2), LA Clippers ($94.9), Oklahoma City ($99.2), Cleveland ($110.3).

So there's problem #1. More teams in the luxury than over the cap. And most those teams (outside of Brooklyn and Detroit) have guys that if spread around the league would level this balance a lower the need to tank.

Now lets say that there's a hard cap set at $81 million. The total in salaries of teams over that imaginary $82 mil cap threshold: $1,171,221,779. That's 12 teams over that $81 mil number by a combined $199,221,779. The bottom 18 teams spent a total of $1,165,225,425. Those 18 teams together would be shy of the $81mil cap by a combined $292,774,575. That would put more total money available under the cap than what was spent over the cap by close to $100 mil.

So in reality, a plan with a hard cap doesn't cost the players anything.

Like I said the use is in the owners. You would be forcing guys like Gilbert to give up $30 mil in players. That's why owners would never go for it. Heck even if we went with my plan of 1 "Franchise player" who wouldn't count against that $81 mil cap, you can take LeBron Jamse's $22,970,500. That still leaves $7 Mil + (gotta leave enough to replace that guy with a minimum salary player to replace them). That would basically mean losing Anderson Varejao or Iman Shumpert to make this work.

So again, issue isn't players because Varejao or Shumpert could get their money with a team under the cap. The problem is Gilbert, who basically doesn't care about paying the luxury tax if it means he can win a championship.

But if you combine a hard cap, with a salary floor with heavy penalty, along with lottery reform, the "incentive" to tank means very little.

hugepatsfan
12-14-2015, 11:54 AM
I really think the problem is in trying to "eliminate" tanking rather than just minimize it to a select few teams. The whole lottery system only encourages tanking as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it slighly reduces the incentive for the absolute worst teams to tank, but it offers HUGE incentive for the mid-lottery teams to tank. If you just got rid of the system and went by record like every other sport, the absolute bottom of the barrel teams would fight to out-tank each other, but you wouldn't have the whole rest of the lottery trying to do it. The mid lottery teams wouldn't be able to luck into a #1 pick so instead they'd have to focus on other ways to get better.

Combine that with a hard cap and the removal of a max contract and you'd have a league where teams not only want to but CAN build through free agency. Even the "non-desirable markets" because there would be a significant money gap in signing with one of those teams vs. "teaming up" in a glamorous place that already has a huge money star. With the max contract system now a player is making pretty much the same whether he signs with a contender that has other stars or goes to his own so there isn't really any financial drawback. If you had no max contract and made it a hard cap, then some team could offer him a lot more money to be their franchise player and he'd have actual financial incentive to sign on. You'd have the stars more spread out and then more teams feel they have a shot.

tredigs
12-14-2015, 12:04 PM
I still love the idea of elimination wins. The team with the most wins after they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs would get the #1 pick. This would force the bad teams to try and win as many games as possible at the end of the season. Isn't that the whole point?

A few huge problems with this:

A) Does nothing to necessarily prevent tanking the majority of the year.

B) Does not create an even playing field between their conferences. Mathematically eliminated in the East is not going to be the same as the West.

C) This effectively punishes the actual worst teams in the league. Why would that be a good idea?

On first glance I liked the post on reducing the teams chances if they are in the lottery consecutive seasons quite a bit. Ween them off the NBA's teet.

KnicksorBust
12-14-2015, 12:44 PM
A few huge problems with this:

A) Does nothing to necessarily prevent tanking the majority of the year.

Sure it does because no team would be incentivized to create a roster incapable of winning games.


B) Does not create an even playing field between their conferences. Mathematically eliminated in the East is not going to be the same as the West.


You got me there. I'm not really sure how to fix that problem either.


C) This effectively punishes the actual worst teams in the league. Why would that be a good idea?

I disagree because the wort teams in the league would still be the first eliminated from the playoffs and have an advantage in the number of games they have to get "elimination wins." Teams like the Sixers would never be this poorly constructed for fear of never getting enough elimination wins to get to the top of the draft board. Isn't that the big issue here? You can't put together a 9 win team anymore because you would end up drafting outside of the top 3 even with a terrible roster. Realistically there would only be a small window of the season where losing was helpful and the majority of the season your team would be trying to win. As a fan of the Knicks last season nothing frustrated me more than going to the Knicks forum and seeing people actively rooting against our team. Elimination wins would allow fan bases to still actually want their teams to WIN and force teams to play their most competitive lineups rather than shutting down stars to tank.

With the exception of the East/West problem (admittedly a big one), I think it's a great idea and would bring a lot of excitement to fan bases whose teams were having bad seasons. Win-Win.

da ThRONe
12-14-2015, 12:48 PM
I really think the problem is in trying to "eliminate" tanking rather than just minimize it to a select few teams. The whole lottery system only encourages tanking as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it slighly reduces the incentive for the absolute worst teams to tank, but it offers HUGE incentive for the mid-lottery teams to tank. If you just got rid of the system and went by record like every other sport, the absolute bottom of the barrel teams would fight to out-tank each other, but you wouldn't have the whole rest of the lottery trying to do it. The mid lottery teams wouldn't be able to luck into a #1 pick so instead they'd have to focus on other ways to get better.

Combine that with a hard cap and the removal of a max contract and you'd have a league where teams not only want to but CAN build through free agency. Even the "non-desirable markets" because there would be a significant money gap in signing with one of those teams vs. "teaming up" in a glamorous place that already has a huge money star. With the max contract system now a player is making pretty much the same whether he signs with a contender that has other stars or goes to his own so there isn't really any financial drawback. If you had no max contract and made it a hard cap, then some team could offer him a lot more money to be their franchise player and he'd have actual financial incentive to sign on. You'd have the stars more spread out and then more teams feel they have a shot.

This is pretty much my plan. It's far more simple and a lot more effective than most of the reforms ideas I read. The only other thing I would say that would help is reducing the season by 18-22 games. Less games less time to tank.

tredigs
12-14-2015, 12:58 PM
Sure it does because no team would be incentivized to create a roster incapable of winning games.



You got me there. I'm not really sure how to fix that problem either.



I disagree because the wort teams in the league would still be the first eliminated from the playoffs and have an advantage in the number of games they have to get "elimination wins." Teams like the Sixers would never be this poorly constructed for fear of never getting enough elimination wins to get to the top of the draft board. Isn't that the big issue here? You can't put together a 9 win team anymore because you would end up drafting outside of the top 3 even with a terrible roster. Realistically there would only be a small window of the season where losing was helpful and the majority of the season your team would be trying to win. As a fan of the Knicks last season nothing frustrated me more than going to the Knicks forum and seeing people actively rooting against our team. Elimination wins would allow fan bases to still actually want their teams to WIN and force teams to play their most competitive lineups rather than shutting down stars to tank.

With the exception of the East/West problem (admittedly a big one), I think it's a great idea and would bring a lot of excitement to fan bases whose teams were having bad seasons. Win-Win.

Completely disagree. Sometimes teams shoot for the moon and are still terrible (Nets for example, although they're so inept that they also gave away their picks). The East/West distinction already makes this a non-possibility, but I think you're completely undermining the fact that teams simply are just terrible sometimes. There's only one organization actively tanking right now (not players/coaches, but organization), the rest are just bad. If the Lakers/Nets are actively trying to win games at the end of the year for a draft pick (which, by the way, the players themselves won't necessarily be trying any harder to add a guy to their roster who will chew up their PT + touches), it won't look any different than it does right now.

If anything, I could see early/mid-season injuries to middling/lower-tier teams becoming a much longer recovery process than they otherwise would. An early season tank where they turned them loose to close the year, essentially. It's just a bad idea.

I'm still liking JeDean's proposal. I had not hear that one yet, and it's a very basic + excellent concept that would serve its purpose without necessitating any collateral problems that an idea like the one you're mentioning would. Sorry, not trying to **** on you, but it's a poorly thought out concept. I don't think you're taking into account that players/coaches don't tank, organizations do (and this is extremely rare).

warfelg
12-14-2015, 01:17 PM
Completely disagree. Sometimes teams shoot for the moon and are still terrible (Nets for example, although they're so inept that they also gave away their picks). The East/West distinction already makes this a non-possibility, but I think you're completely undermining the fact that teams simply are just terrible sometimes. There's only one organization actively tanking right now (not players/coaches, but organization), the rest are just bad. If the Lakers/Nets are actively trying to win games at the end of the year for a draft pick (which, by the way, the players themselves won't necessarily be trying any harder to add a guy to their roster who will chew up their PT + touches).

If anything, I could see early/mid-season injuries to middling/lower-tier teams becoming a much longer recovery process than they otherwise would. An early season tank where they turned them loose to close the year, essentially. It's just a bad idea.

I'm still liking JeDean's proposal. I had not hear that one yet, and it's a very basic + excellent concept that would serve its purpose without necessitating any collateral problems that an idea like the one you're mentioning would. Sorry, not trying to **** on you, but it's a poorly thought out concept. I don't think you're taking into account that players/coaches don't tank, organizations do (and this is extremely rare).

What about my plan in the OP for a tiered odds system that includes the 8th seed in both conferences? Flat odds on picks #1-3 for teams 1-4, 5-8, 8-12, 13-16. No longer do you shoot to be the worst team in the NBA. Now only being 1 of the 4 worst teams gets you the best odds.

I had a much bigger plan that would also shorten the schedule a bit, move a team, and alter the east/west balance a little. The problem is I know there would be quite a few people that would really hate that part of it.

canzano55
12-14-2015, 01:53 PM
The system is fine the way it is.

Nobody likes what Philly is doing but they're more at risk than anyone else - if this fiasco continues the intrinsic implications could be that Philadelphia loses its basketball team.

Before anyone says "that would never happen" remember that the city of Philadelphia is a lot smaller than it used to be - many people have moved out over the years so the consumer index has actually retracted. On top of that its having to feed off of league revenue to stay alive during this period and so there is mounting pressure on the sixers from other owners to fix the situation.

If you really want to make a difference in tanking then reduce league revenue sharing for teams that have been abusing the draft system for more than 5 years.

No club should be getting paid by the league to suck forever so they can get draft picks - at some point you have to pull the cord.

tredigs
12-14-2015, 01:59 PM
What about my plan in the OP for a tiered odds system that includes the 8th seed in both conferences? Flat odds on picks #1-3 for teams 1-4, 5-8, 8-12, 13-16. No longer do you shoot to be the worst team in the NBA. Now only being 1 of the 4 worst teams gets you the best odds.

I had a much bigger plan that would also shorten the schedule a bit, move a team, and alter the east/west balance a little. The problem is I know there would be quite a few people that would really hate that part of it.

If they're tiered flat-odds at those cutoffs, it only serves to incentive tanking to be in a lower group. As it is, the team with the most ping-pong balls (the worst record) still only has a 25% chance at the #1 pick, the 2nd worst team has a 19.9% chance. That means it's more likely that the #1 pick goes to a team other than the two worst in the league. To me, that's already enough incentive not to tank.

Where tanking IS extremely incentivised is when a team has a protected draft pick via trade. This happens all the time, and we popularly saw it from the Warriors when they had a top-7 protected draft pick that they would have lost had they received the #8 pick. When Curry went down with his ankle issues, they sat them far longer than they probably needed to, and it was absolutely the right decision. They landed Harrison Barnes as a result, and indirectly Draymond Green + Ezeli (they still may have chosen both, but if they were the 10 seed then they get no Barnes and maybe Green + Ezeli are picked two slots higher). Anyway, that is what should go. We have many teams this year in the exact same situation. Other than that, the lottery is extremely fair as is.

warfelg
12-14-2015, 02:24 PM
The system is fine the way it is.

Nobody likes what Philly is doing but they're more at risk than anyone else - if this fiasco continues the intrinsic implications could be that Philadelphia loses its basketball team.

Before anyone says "that would never happen" remember that the city of Philadelphia is a lot smaller than it used to be - many people have moved out over the years so the consumer index has actually retracted. On top of that its having to feed off of league revenue to stay alive during this period and so there is mounting pressure on the sixers from other owners to fix the situation.

If you really want to make a difference in tanking then reduce league revenue sharing for teams that have been abusing the draft system for more than 5 years.

No club should be getting paid by the league to suck forever so they can get draft picks - at some point you have to pull the cord.

Philadelphia is never losing its NBA team. lol.

ewing
12-14-2015, 02:37 PM
there are only two total bottom feeders in the NBA right now and only one team that does not make an effort to improve. I only see it as an issue with one team and the league seems to have already taken action with them.

warfelg
12-14-2015, 02:40 PM
If they're tiered flat-odds at those cutoffs, it only serves to incentive tanking to be in a lower group. As it is, the team with the most ping-pong balls (the worst record) still only has a 25% chance at the #1 pick, the 2nd worst team has a 19.9% chance. That means it's more likely that the #1 pick goes to a team other than the two worst in the league. To me, that's already enough incentive not to tank.

Where tanking IS extremely incentivised is when a team has a protected draft pick via trade. This happens all the time, and we popularly saw it from the Warriors when they had a top-7 protected draft pick that they would have lost had they received the #8 pick. When Curry went down with his ankle issues, they sat them far longer than they probably needed to, and it was absolutely the right decision. They landed Harrison Barnes as a result, and indirectly Draymond Green + Ezeli (they still may have chosen both, but if they were the 10 seed then they get no Barnes and maybe Green + Ezeli are picked two slots higher). Anyway, that is what should go. We have many teams this year in the exact same situation. Other than that, the lottery is extremely fair as is.

On your first point:
What flattening the lotto into tiers, then randomly drawing the top 3 picks does is lessen the tanking to be the worst team to one of the 4 worse. By including the two 8 seeds, it's also encouraging the teams to make the playoffs as it doesn't take away the chance at a great pick. Would you rather see a 8 seed would tank the last week and maybe miss the playoffs, or see a real battle for the 7-8-9 area knowing a playoff team still gets the lotto.

And in my plan to tiering, you no longer have the incentive to be the absolute worst team because of higher odds. With a flat odds in 1-4 what does it matter if you accidentally win a few extra games. And what it also does, is it lowers the odds of the top pick coming from the top 4. Right now there's a 72.4% chance. Dropping it to 70%.

As for your second point:
That's always going to happen. You don't think the Lakers are pushing to stay in the worst 3 teams in the NBA because of top 3 protection? They are. With better rotations they could have about 3-5 more wins pulling them out of the worst three.

Flattening the odds, IMO, would actually make it harder to tank into keeping the pick. Your Warriors example: if they got to the 7 spot, there's only a 24% chance that they miss out on it. I haven't don't the odds on my tiers, but I think it gets kinda lowered a considerable amount.

Jamiecballer
12-14-2015, 10:43 PM
That makes is so grotesquely hard for bad teams to turn it around. Hate that idea.
Are you speaking as a Knicks fan?

JasonJohnHorn
12-15-2015, 02:36 AM
The best way to motivate teams to try to win is to reward winning.


I think the only way to do this is to extend the playoffs and create a playoff format for the lotter.

the top 4 teams in each division play a 4-team playoff series for the division title, after which the team with the best record of the three gets a bi into the conference finals.

That will leave 6 teams out of the playoffs. They play each other, so they will be motivated to maintain a decent roster to be successful. Pooer teams are given an advantage. The two worse teams get a by, and the team with the worse record gets home-court advantage. The series will be 5 games instead of seven. The winner gets the first pick; the runner up gets the second; the two teams who lost in the semis play each other will play each other to determine 4rd and 4th, and the teams that lost in the first round will play each other to determine 5th and 6th.

This will do several things. Keep more teams in the playoff hunt so people will be motivated to win. It will also ensure that the teams that do lose are motivated to keep a competitive roster in tact because they will not be able to get the first pick without one. This means not buying out a vet and letting him jump ship to a contender to ring chase his way on a discount before getting a new contract in the summer, which will keep teams honest.

Only problem here; if one of those bottom six teams traded the pick away; that can be corrected by merely taking them out of the playoff and giving them the 6th pick, or making all trades top-6 protected or setting up a rule that if a team has trade a pick, their need for that pick supersedes the trade and the trade partner has their pic deferred to the following season.

da ThRONe
12-16-2015, 03:41 PM
The best way to motivate teams to try to win is to reward winning.


I think the only way to do this is to extend the playoffs and create a playoff format for the lotter.

the top 4 teams in each division play a 4-team playoff series for the division title, after which the team with the best record of the three gets a bi into the conference finals.

That will leave 6 teams out of the playoffs. They play each other, so they will be motivated to maintain a decent roster to be successful. Pooer teams are given an advantage. The two worse teams get a by, and the team with the worse record gets home-court advantage. The series will be 5 games instead of seven. The winner gets the first pick; the runner up gets the second; the two teams who lost in the semis play each other will play each other to determine 4rd and 4th, and the teams that lost in the first round will play each other to determine 5th and 6th.

This will do several things. Keep more teams in the playoff hunt so people will be motivated to win. It will also ensure that the teams that do lose are motivated to keep a competitive roster in tact because they will not be able to get the first pick without one. This means not buying out a vet and letting him jump ship to a contender to ring chase his way on a discount before getting a new contract in the summer, which will keep teams honest.

Only problem here; if one of those bottom six teams traded the pick away; that can be corrected by merely taking them out of the playoff and giving them the 6th pick, or making all trades top-6 protected or setting up a rule that if a team has trade a pick, their need for that pick supersedes the trade and the trade partner has their pic deferred to the following season.

So what about the teams that are just organically bad? How do they ever get better? If they can't get high draft picks and they aren't attracting top FA what are they to do to improve as a franchise?

warfelg
12-16-2015, 04:45 PM
So what about the teams that are just organically bad? How do they ever get better? If they can't get high draft picks and they aren't attracting top FA what are they to do to improve as a franchise?

That's kinda my issue of any draft reform that doesn't take regular season record into account. It doesn't stop tanking (could you imagine Knicks sitting Melo all year, building up losses, then bringing him in to 'win' a '#1 pick playoff'), it just promotes more creativity with it. And it punishes the actual bad teams like you said. What if a team suddenly have a guy retire and two FA's leave?

desertlakeshow
12-16-2015, 11:51 PM
Fix tanking- easy.

Any team not in the Playoffs has an equal chance at the #1. Equal chance. No reason to tank.

Return Basketball to greatness:

Remove the salary cap.

Parity has ruined every sport that I have loved.

Leave Basketball alone.

BKLYNpigeon
12-17-2015, 01:27 AM
You want to Minimize Tanking?

if you don't win 25 games, you lose your 1st round pick.

Quinnsanity
12-17-2015, 01:53 AM
I'm very pro-tanking, but ok, I'll bite.

What if you just took picks away from teams that hit certain draft markers? For example, let's say if you win the No. 1 pick, you lose your first round draft pick the next year. That would at least curb long term tanking. There could be other markers as well, like two consecutive top-3 picks and you lose your first rounder, three consecutive top five, four consecutive top-10's or five consecutive lotto's. That seems reasonable without outright punishing teams that just happen to be bad. You get your chance to stock up in the draft but you get punished if you try to overdo it.

JasonJohnHorn
12-17-2015, 11:07 AM
So what about the teams that are just organically bad? How do they ever get better? If they can't get high draft picks and they aren't attracting top FA what are they to do to improve as a franchise?

The very worst teams will get a top-4 pick, which is more than what they get promised right now.

You could be the second worst team in the league and potentially end up picking 5.


This way, if you are one of the two worst teams, you get a bi in the first round of the draft playoff, and you get home court in the second round. The losers of the first round get picks 5 and 6; the losers of the second round (which might be the worst teams in the league) get 3 and 4, and the winners get picks 1 and 2.


When you look at the draft history, you will see that number 3 and 4 picks and even later (Curry, Klay Thompson, DMC, Paul George, Horford, D-Will, CP3, Harden, Love, Westbrook, Wade Bosh Melo) frequently out perform number 2 and even 1 picks (Darko, Thabeet, Beasely, Oden, Marvin Williams, Evan Turner, Derrick Williams).

Obviously the first pick is huge. But if you are in the bottom six, you have the potential to pick 9th with the current system, and FREQUENTLY pick 7ths or even 8th.

This way you get a top six-pick, and though number 1 proves the most valuable on a long time line (Blake, LBJ, Dunca, Hakeem, D-Rob, Rose, Dwight, ect), they often leave the team that drafted them (LBJ, Dwight, Shaq, Webber), are busts (Anthony Bennet, Greg Oden, Bargnani) or come from a weak draft and aren't franchise players (Bogut, Kenyon Martin, Elton Brand, Joe Smith, Glen Robinson).

A top six pick can be a game changer. If you get 3 top-six picks in a row and aren't on your way to winning, the team needs to fire the GM, not get hire picks.

McAllen Tx
12-17-2015, 11:10 AM
I still love the idea of elimination wins. The team with the most wins after they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs would get the #1 pick. This would force the bad teams to try and win as many games as possible at the end of the season. Isn't that the whole point?
That wouldnt work because so some teams get mathematically eliminated with 30 games to go while others the last week of the season. But I do like where you're going with this.

I think the trading deadline should be the beginning point to decide the lottery. Best winning % from all non-playoffs teams after the TD draft 1st to the worst team drafting 14th.

This forces teams to try and win and actually make deals to help them win.

Jeffy25
12-17-2015, 11:15 AM
I think all lottery picks should just get the same chance of getting a 1-14 pick next year

If you miss the playoffs, that pick is worth any random pick between 1-14.

So every team still wants to make the playoffs, because they have equal odds at an elite pick.

The problem is that some times a team that just missed the playoffs may get that super star in the next draft, and now they are a dynasty that easily.

warfelg
12-17-2015, 11:24 AM
I think all lottery picks should just get the same chance of getting a 1-14 pick next year

If you miss the playoffs, that pick is worth any random pick between 1-14.

So every team still wants to make the playoffs, because they have equal odds at an elite pick.

The problem is that some times a team that just missed the playoffs may get that super star in the next draft, and now they are a dynasty that easily.

I think you'll increase fighting and tanking to miss the playoffs at the end of the season then. I mean right now the Pistons are the 8th seed in the east. What's to stop them from sitting Drummond with an "injury", letting the Hawks slip past them, then having the same odds as the Lakers and Sixers in the draft?

All you do with this is move the tanking from the 3 worst teams, to the 7-8-9-10 seed in each conference.

warfelg
12-17-2015, 11:32 AM
That wouldnt work because so some teams get mathematically eliminated with 30 games to go while others the last week of the season. But I do like where you're going with this.

I think the trading deadline should be the beginning point to decide the lottery. Best winning % from all non-playoffs teams after the TD draft 1st to the worst team drafting 14th.

This forces teams to try and win and actually make deals to help them win.

If schedules were balanced after the TD it might work. But again, you might end up punishing a team that isn't trying to tank, but trades away a decent player, for an extra pick and young guy, and then you punish them for just not being good.

Like I've mentioned before, all draft reform ends up doing is keeping bad teams bad. If you want minor draft reform (changing odds, tiering, straight up by record) and combine it with cap/FA restructuring to create more player movement, then you end up really lowering the incentive to tank.

Jeffy25
12-17-2015, 11:32 AM
I think you'll increase fighting and tanking to miss the playoffs at the end of the season then. I mean right now the Pistons are the 8th seed in the east. What's to stop them from sitting Drummond with an "injury", letting the Hawks slip past them, then having the same odds as the Lakers and Sixers in the draft?

All you do with this is move the tanking from the 3 worst teams, to the 7-8-9-10 seed in each conference.

I would think being a playoff team as an 8 seed is better than missing the playoffs.

Playoff revenue

warfelg
12-17-2015, 11:40 AM
I would think being a playoff team as an 8 seed is better than missing the playoffs.

Playoff revenue

Wouldn't beat the years of revenue that could come from a chance at a great player.

Take my example. It would take a big jump by KCP, and other players for them to really make it far past a 6th seed. But give them the same odds (7.14%) at Ben Simmons as anyone else, and that's worth far more than the revenue of 2 home games.

JWO35
12-17-2015, 12:04 PM
It would never happen but relegating teams would certainly stop teams from tanking...if the NBA is serious about having a 30-team Development League by 2017 it becomes slightly more realistic(still unlikely).

McAllen Tx
12-17-2015, 01:52 PM
If schedules were balanced after the TD it might work. But again, you might end up punishing a team that isn't trying to tank, but trades away a decent player, for an extra pick and young guy, and then you punish them for just not being good.

Like I've mentioned before, all draft reform ends up doing is keeping bad teams bad. If you want minor draft reform (changing odds, tiering, straight up by record) and combine it with cap/FA restructuring to create more player movement, then you end up really lowering the incentive to tank.
Im sure the NBA can make it very close in scheduling after the TD.

About your point of it punishing a team for trading a decent player for a draft pick, thats not a punishment from the system thats a bad trade from the GM. GM has to be held accountable. No more bullshyte trades. Every trade will be towards winning. Well cant say EVERY but for the most part

This system makes every game meaningful for every team after the TD. Unless you traded your 1st.

This is just for the tanking.

da ThRONe
12-17-2015, 05:24 PM
Im sure the NBA can make it very close in scheduling after the TD.

About your point of it punishing a team for trading a decent player for a draft pick, thats not a punishment from the system thats a bad trade from the GM. GM has to be held accountable. No more bullshyte trades. Every trade will be towards winning. Well cant say EVERY but for the most part

This system makes every game meaningful for every team after the TD. Unless you traded your 1st.

This is just for the tanking.

Most of the time the teams hands are tied when trading away their stars. They can't get a firm commitment from the star and risk losing them for nothing if they don't re-sign. So the immediate outcome may be bad, but it's better to get something than nothing.

warfelg
12-17-2015, 05:33 PM
Most of the time the teams hands are tied when trading away their stars. They can't get a firm commitment from the star and risk losing them for nothing if they don't re-sign. So the immediate outcome may be bad, but it's better to get something than nothing.

Agreed. Way too much going on to use post trade deadline records for draft position.

da ThRONe
12-17-2015, 06:39 PM
The very worst teams will get a top-4 pick, which is more than what they get promised right now.

You could be the second worst team in the league and potentially end up picking 5.


This way, if you are one of the two worst teams, you get a bi in the first round of the draft playoff, and you get home court in the second round. The losers of the first round get picks 5 and 6; the losers of the second round (which might be the worst teams in the league) get 3 and 4, and the winners get picks 1 and 2.


When you look at the draft history, you will see that number 3 and 4 picks and even later (Curry, Klay Thompson, DMC, Paul George, Horford, D-Will, CP3, Harden, Love, Westbrook, Wade Bosh Melo) frequently out perform number 2 and even 1 picks (Darko, Thabeet, Beasely, Oden, Marvin Williams, Evan Turner, Derrick Williams).

Obviously the first pick is huge. But if you are in the bottom six, you have the potential to pick 9th with the current system, and FREQUENTLY pick 7ths or even 8th.

This way you get a top six-pick, and though number 1 proves the most valuable on a long time line (Blake, LBJ, Dunca, Hakeem, D-Rob, Rose, Dwight, ect), they often leave the team that drafted them (LBJ, Dwight, Shaq, Webber), are busts (Anthony Bennet, Greg Oden, Bargnani) or come from a weak draft and aren't franchise players (Bogut, Kenyon Martin, Elton Brand, Joe Smith, Glen Robinson).

A top six pick can be a game changer. If you get 3 top-six picks in a row and aren't on your way to winning, the team needs to fire the GM, not get hire picks.

Sure luck plays a role in team building. Injuries ruined what Portland could have had with Aldridge/Roy/Oden. However the key is to be in the best possible situation to succeed and statically the higher the draft the more likely you are at acquiring the talent needed to be successful.

I just don't get it. If tanking is so bad just get rid of the draft. Because the draft was designed to give the worse team the best chance at the player that franchise deemed best. The lottery already damages the whole point of a sports draft. There will always be bad teams in every sports league at some point. Making a big deal about tanking is IMO the league least problems. However if you are going to really fix it as mentioned you have to get at the root cause of tanking. The root cause is rookie contracts are highly valuable, free agency is wildly unpredictable, max contract incentives the best to team up, and the season is so long that teams are usually basically eliminated when the season just starts.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 01:01 AM
Most of the time the teams hands are tied when trading away their stars. They can't get a firm commitment from the star and risk losing them for nothing if they don't re-sign. So the immediate outcome may be bad, but it's better to get something than nothing.
We're talking about 2 different things. Im talking about how to eliminate tanking ( you know, what the thread is about ), you're talking about how a team can get the best return if they have to trade their star player. Totally different subject.

Im saying even the bad teams will look to make deals to get BETTER not to get worse.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 01:07 AM
Agreed. Way too much going on to use post trade deadline records for draft position.

Its obvious to me that you started this thread to hear yourself talk. You hoping everyone embraced your ideas as the right way. Seems like everyone who had a different idea from yours you shot down.

warfelg
12-18-2015, 01:22 AM
Its obvious to me that you started this thread to hear yourself talk. You hoping everyone embraced your ideas as the right way. Seems like everyone who had a different idea from yours you shot down.

No. It's just so many of the ideas don't as much stop tanking as they do hurt bad teams. Sometimes a team at the bottom of the league isn't tanking but is rather just bad. Take Denver last year. Not tanking. Just bad. Ditto for Minnesota. Now they stay bad for years because they are unable to get that high pick. I feel as though saying "just do the wheel" or "playoff for the pick" or "record from X date" doesn't really take into account the ramifications of what it means.

warfelg
12-18-2015, 01:25 AM
We're talking about 2 different things. Im talking about how to eliminate tanking ( you know, what the thread is about ), you're talking about how a team can get the best return if they have to trade their star player. Totally different subject.

Im saying even the bad teams will look to make deals to get BETTER not to get worse.

how often does a good player go to a bad team at a deadline for a number of parts?

I think it would put the trade deadline at a stale mate. Non-playoff teams will be looking to get better now, and playoff teams want to get better now.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 01:47 AM
how often does a good player go to a bad team at a deadline for a number of parts?

I think it would put the trade deadline at a stale mate. Non-playoff teams will be looking to get better now, and playoff teams want to get better now.

Exactly. No bullshyte trades. You want to get better then you play to win. Wouldnt that do away with tanking? Isnt that the purpose for this thread, to do away with tanking?

warfelg
12-18-2015, 01:54 AM
Exactly. No bullshyte trades. You want to get better then you play to win. Wouldnt that do away with tanking? Isnt that the purpose for this thread, to do away with tanking?

Ok so if trades are at a stale mate, because no trades go through that make them better, they finish poor. Which leads to a poor pick. Which isn't as good a play. Which keeps them bad. Because they are bad the best they can do in FA is give a player that doesn't deserve it a max contract. Now they have bad players and are in cap hell. No hope at a good player. No shot at a championship. Basically a team that is just a place holder. Meanwhile teams just out of the playoffs keep getting better, a team barely in the playoffs last year barely miss the next year and get a better player and they jump. A greater divide between the haves and have nots develops. Fans stop going to the have nots, owners lose money, a drain starts to happen on revenue sharing, and the NBA has less money to operate with.

That's the consequences of that you are suggesting.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 02:06 AM
Ok so if trades are at a stale mate, because no trades go through that make them better, they finish poor. Which leads to a poor pick. Which isn't as good a play. Which keeps them bad. Because they are bad the best they can do in FA is give a player that doesn't deserve it a max contract. Now they have bad players and are in cap hell. No hope at a good player. No shot at a championship. Basically a team that is just a place holder. Meanwhile teams just out of the playoffs keep getting better, a team barely in the playoffs last year barely miss the next year and get a better player and they jump. A greater divide between the haves and have nots develops. Fans stop going to the have nots, owners lose money, a drain starts to happen on revenue sharing, and the NBA has less money to operate with.

That's the consequences of that you are suggesting.

Lmfao

You just threw every negative possible scenario out there to try and prove your point. Thats just rediculous.

Its not like something like this would be from one year to another. Teams are totally blindsided. They will get something like a 3 year heads up to get ready for something like this.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 10:11 AM
Ok so if trades are at a stale mate, because no trades go through that make them better, they finish poor. Which leads to a poor pick. Which isn't as good a play. Which keeps them bad. Because they are bad the best they can do in FA is give a player that doesn't deserve it a max contract. Now they have bad players and are in cap hell. No hope at a good player. No shot at a championship. Basically a team that is just a place holder. Meanwhile teams just out of the playoffs keep getting better, a team barely in the playoffs last year barely miss the next year and get a better player and they jump. A greater divide between the haves and have nots develops. Fans stop going to the have nots, owners lose money, a drain starts to happen on revenue sharing, and the NBA has less money to operate with.

That's the consequences of that you are suggesting.

This post right here is exactly what Tony Starks was talking about when he mentioned "losing culture." You know the theory you think is overrated. You just proved yourself wrong. You have a losing mentality. Its unreal for you to even think that a system where teams should have to play to win be the way they get better.

But I noticed you dont want to stop the tanking, you just want to minimize it. Why just minimize it, why not just do away with it? You dont have faith in your FO and thinking ahead 5-6 years and already know you gonna have to rely on tanking all over again? Maybe thinking by then your FO will have tanking down packed and be the Zen of tanking?

Losing culture.

warfelg
12-18-2015, 11:28 AM
This post right here is exactly what Tony Starks was talking about when he mentioned "losing culture." You know the theory you think is overrated. You just proved yourself wrong. You have a losing mentality. Its unreal for you to even think that a system where teams should have to play to win be the way they get better.

I think a losing culture is overrated because it comes with this notion that players don't want to win and don't care about winning.


But I noticed you dont want to stop the tanking, you just want to minimize it. Why just minimize it, why not just do away with it? You dont have faith in your FO and thinking ahead 5-6 years and already know you gonna have to rely on tanking all over again? Maybe thinking by then your FO will have tanking down packed and be the Zen of tanking?

Losing culture.

I said minimized because there will always be a bit of tanking. All sports have it. You can't eliminate tanking all together as long as bad teams exist and a good player in the draft exists.


I brought up the downside to a "best record after the trade deadline gets best pick" idea, and instead of discussing it about countering you respond "lmfao". Look at the other people that their plan's downside was brought up, they backed up why they thought it works.

Like I asked, what good team is giving up a good player to a bad team for some bad parts? There's no way that GS would give up Klay to a team like Orlando, or the Nets, for a bunch of parts because it hurts their championship aspirations, meanwhile Orlando or the Nets wouldn't be able to get the player that could feasibly get them the better pick to get a better player.

How about addressing that and how it kills the trade market and doesn't do more than create a reverse pick order with non-playoff teams?

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 11:59 AM
Losing culture is having a losing mentality. You expect to lose anyways so why bother trying to win. It goes beyond just the players. The FO and its fans too. Look at what you did here, instead of coming up with ways to win, make winning a way to get better, you just tweeked tanking rules. Its OK to tank just dont fall into the same tier 3 years in a row. On the 3rd year move up a tier so you dont get penalized but you good on the 4th year - tank away.

There will always be trades. There will always be teams looking ahead to the following years FAs and if they think they can land someone in particular but dont have the cap space they will look to move someone, on the other side there will always be teams looking to trade for someone to help get better for that year especially if it would help their draft position. So stop trying to make it seem like there will never be another trade ever. Trades will still be a big oart in the NBA.

What was your argument against my system? That the league was gonna close down. LMFAO. Get real.

Just admit that your system sucks and you want Philly to keep tanking in hopes you draft LBJs son. LMFAO

warfelg
12-18-2015, 12:07 PM
I was going to respond, but nevermind. I'm done with you. You can't hold a discussion without getting pissy that someone has a counterpoint.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 12:15 PM
I was going to respond, but nevermind. I'm done with you. You can't hold a discussion without getting pissy that someone has a counterpoint.

What was your counterpoint? That if the league implemented a system where winning is the most important thing it was going to go bankrupt?

Damn I cant stop laughing...

warfelg
12-18-2015, 12:26 PM
Reward mediocrity, punish the naturally bad.

McAllen Tx
12-18-2015, 12:46 PM
Reward mediocrity, punish the naturally bad.

Reward the teams that are trying but stuck in mediocrity, punish the teams that arent even trying to win.

WTF is naturally bad? Every team drafts from the same pool, every team plays under the same rules, every team has the same cap, if your team stinks changes need to be made with your teams FO. Stop being cheap and dish out big $ to FO personel that'll try to win and not just there to take orders from the owners.

Jamiecballer
12-18-2015, 01:37 PM
Obviously it's not possible to end tanking short of pre-determined draft spots. So instead of tossing around ideas that just create a different set of challenges i wont fight it. So i will opt for the wheel but as part of a number of reforms.

In addition to the wheel i'd institute an age minimum of 23 to minimize the possibilities of a player staying in school for a more favorable draft destination.

I'd also increase the draft to 4 rounds and implement a full minor league system. This should provide teams that are currently not good and who are not in the part of the cycle with a really high pick more reason to believe they can improve through internal development.

warfelg
12-18-2015, 02:09 PM
Obviously it's not possible to end tanking short of pre-determined draft spots. So instead of tossing around ideas that just create a different set of challenges i wont fight it. So i will opt for the wheel but as part of a number of reforms.

In addition to the wheel i'd institute an age minimum of 23 to minimize the possibilities of a player staying in school for a more favorable draft destination.

I'd also increase the draft to 4 rounds and implement a full minor league system. This should provide teams that are currently not good and who are not in the part of the cycle with a really high pick more reason to believe they can improve through internal development.

Yea, if you want the wheel a raised age minimum is needed to stem the idea of CBB players manipulating the system a bit. Although I thing 23 is too high. Many guys have long graduated by then. I would say maybe 21 or 3 years removed from HS graduation, whichever comes first. I think that's the major downside to the wheel though. If I time it or want to, I could go to college for 3 years, play a year in Europe or Asia, and enter the draft with the best team picking first. Maybe make them (players) declare much sooner? 18 months out?

I like the idea if increased rounds and full minor league style system. I've used that as a way to kick around the NCAA paying students and players who want money. You can be drafted out of HS, but have to spend 3 years in NBDL (max salary of $500,000) OR go to college for 2 years and get drafted.

McAllen Tx
12-19-2015, 02:17 AM
What if we just blind fold a monkey and have him/her throw a dart at a wall with ballons that have all non-playoffs teams logo on them?

And to make it watchable, we should use female monkeys with lip stick, lingerie & stilettos.

slashsnake
12-19-2015, 08:18 AM
I said this before but a semi reverse draft. Once you are 10 games out and in the 2nd half of the season (or 50 games or 55 or whatever the numbers look good for), the wins start counting, team with most wins after that gets the top pick.

So right now Philly is there, Brooklyn and LA are within a couple games. Starting at game #42, their wins can start accumulating for draft position.

I think that would push teams to try and win, not shut down guys early, and make for more entertaining end of year ball which imo is the best time for the NBA. After 70 games all teams games count towards this if they miss the post-season no matter what..

IE. a 3 team scenario...

Philly starts their win clock at game 42. They go 7-34.
New Orleans goes out after 60 games and finishes 10-12.
Phoenix misses the playoffs but was 2 games out. Their last 12 games they go 6-6, they have 6 wins.

Draft order is
NO (10 wins towards draft)
Phi (7 wins towards draft)
Pho (6 wins towards draft)

If Phi benches starters and scrubs out the 2nd half, and wins 4 games they get the last lottery pick.

Tie breakers are best record in counted games (ie philly at 6-36 would have a much worse record than pho at 6-6)
Then head to head record
Then wins over lottery teams

You might see some tanking in those mid season games to get 10 games out sure, but they are all playing for something in the last couple months of the season. Philly and LA right now are playing for the start of the 2nd half of the year, getting up to be as good as they can by then.

McAllen Tx
12-19-2015, 08:27 PM
I said this before but a semi reverse draft. Once you are 10 games out and in the 2nd half of the season (or 50 games or 55 or whatever the numbers look good for), the wins start counting, team with most wins after that gets the top pick.

So right now Philly is there, Brooklyn and LA are within a couple games. Starting at game #42, their wins can start accumulating for draft position.

I think that would push teams to try and win, not shut down guys early, and make for more entertaining end of year ball which imo is the best time for the NBA. After 70 games all teams games count towards this if they miss the post-season no matter what..

IE. a 3 team scenario...

Philly starts their win clock at game 42. They go 7-34.
New Orleans goes out after 60 games and finishes 10-12.
Phoenix misses the playoffs but was 2 games out. Their last 12 games they go 6-6, they have 6 wins.

Draft order is
NO (10 wins towards draft)
Phi (7 wins towards draft)
Pho (6 wins towards draft)

If Phi benches starters and scrubs out the 2nd half, and wins 4 games they get the last lottery pick.

Tie breakers are best record in counted games (ie philly at 6-36 would have a much worse record than pho at 6-6)
Then head to head record
Then wins over lottery teams

You might see some tanking in those mid season games to get 10 games out sure, but they are all playing for something in the last couple months of the season. Philly and LA right now are playing for the start of the 2nd half of the year, getting up to be as good as they can by then.
We just about have the same idea of how the draft order should be set. Teams winning % after a certain date. The date is where we differ in idea. You have tesms qualifyjng at different times of the season, I think it should be a set date for all teams. I mentioned after trading deadline but I see you mentioned after a teams 42nd game. I like that even better. That would give the bottom teams a 40 game stretch each to win. Gives them time to make trades if it will make them better.

The 2nd half of the season would be like college football where EVERY game matters. GS being an unordinary exception this season. Play-offs teams playing for play-offs positioning while lottery teams would be playing for draft positioning. Late season games between OKC-Bkn, SA-Philly, Chi-LAL would be huge. (Just threw random match ups out there).

Cant believe a certain poster said the league would lose $ under such a format. If anything they would make more $.