PDA

View Full Version : Would Promotion & Relegation be the perfect cure to tanking?



JWO35
03-16-2016, 03:09 PM
Could implementing a promotion/relegation system similar to most soccer leagues cure tanking? If you finish in the bottom [number] you run the risk of being relegated to the D-League for a year. Allowing D-League teams to be promoted could also open the door for the NBA to expand outside of the US/North America as well...


Feel free to add your own ideas

Chapin78
03-16-2016, 04:03 PM
I have always liked this idea. Also the idea of loaning players as well. Yes the rich teams would have an advantage but if there is still a cap then that rich team would struggle with having a complete roster.

JWO35
03-16-2016, 05:03 PM
I have always liked this idea. Also the idea of loaning players as well. Yes the rich teams would have an advantage but if there is still a cap then that rich team would struggle with having a complete roster.

Never thought about the idea of loaning players...that's a pretty interesting idea. The salary cap would keep big market teams from forming superstar teams as well.

Alayla
03-16-2016, 11:14 PM
I want to know why people think rebuilding though the draft is a bad thing that needs a cure.

beasted86
03-17-2016, 12:04 AM
I want to know why people think rebuilding though the draft is a bad thing that needs a cure.

Because fans of teams like the Kings and Wolves deserve better after 10+ years of this nonsense. Inept owners hold onto the team and make bad mistake after bad mistake crippling their own franchise because there is essentially not enough of a penalty. Your "penalty" is breaking a profit with your eyes closed off of luxury tax or profit sharing payments, and potentially a perennial all-star in the draft. That's no penalty at all. They basically have nothing to lose, not even profits.

Not sure I agree with this idea, but I agree something has to give. Teams like the Sixers who were paying at least 3 coaches at the same time (Mo Cheeks, Eddie Jordan, Doug Collins) and then proceeded to make one of the worst trades of all time for Bynum, and then get inherited by a new owner who decides he will let them keep on losing "until". There should be a little more accountability for the fans.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 12:36 AM
Relegation would be great.

Never going to happen.

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 09:04 AM
no. terrible idea. theres already not enough parody in the league.

Munkeysuit
03-17-2016, 09:19 AM
Tanking will be cured when organizations value winning championships more than anything else...there is no team that tanked and then won it all with rookies and youngin's. It all starts with awesome front office people and even more awesome coaching staff and management...then you develop a system that gives birth to an identity, then you stick to that identity and win basketball games!
Winning cures all, because then free agents will want to play under a successful system and win too! I don't need to even explain it, just watch the Philadelphia 76ers, they pretty much tell the entire story of how teams should never take that route to succeed.

McAllen Tx
03-17-2016, 10:18 AM
Seems like we have this topic every month. Im still with the idea that the draft order should by the best winning % of all non play-off teams last 32 games. Makes every team try and win every game.

I can still see teams that are at the 8th spot in the play-offs tanking at the end of the season to drop out if they are in line for a top draft pick. I have no problem with that if it can make a mid-tier team a top team.

Stinkyoutsider
03-17-2016, 10:22 AM
I totally agree with the relegation and promotion idea. That thought has been in my mind for quite some time.

If you look at soccer leagues, teams who make good hires and good personnel decisions are rewarded by staying in the league and gaining all the benefits from being there. Teams who don't have good people in those positions (front office) have a tough time staying in the league.

The NBA is set up to protect franchises. Our leagues are much different than in the rest of the world. It's more focused on the league being successful so the teams have to look out for themselves and make good decisions. The reason for this is because there's so many teams in the lower leagues looking to take your team's slot in the league that the league doesn't have to protect the club.

Instead of teams tanking, they could drop off out of the league for a year or 2. This would force teams to compete every year even if they're trying to rebuild. Great for fans imo.

If you take a look at Leeds United in England, they overspent themselves and haven't been back to England's top soccer league in a while. Same could be said for NBA teams in promotion/relegation as well. Sign under performing players to massive contracts and you're going to have money problems.

Like the idea of a loan system. So, pro basketball could go back to when high school grads were eligible and teams could draft them and loan them out to a lower league to get them some experience. Good way for smaller clubs to try to keep up with big market teams by taking the players with the most talent potential.

Burkey3472
03-17-2016, 11:17 AM
There is no way relegation would happen in the NBA even though I do like how soccer does it.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 11:34 AM
no. terrible idea. theres already not enough parody in the league.

There is plenty of parody (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/parody?s=t) in the NBA, just not parity.

The point of relegation is that there is no such thing as true parity because some teams will be well run and some will not, so punish the poorly run teams and bring in other teams that are run well. That will IMPROVE parity not make it worse.

Tony_Starks
03-17-2016, 11:40 AM
I'd be totally for it, but it would never fly.

I also really like the idea of the team that misses the playoffs with the best record gets rewarded the pick. The blatant tanking teams would cry bloody murder but it's more doable.

At the end of the day it's pretty sad that you have to devise new systems and almost shame teams into actually trying to compete...

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 11:47 AM
There is plenty of parody (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/parody?s=t) in the NBA, just not parity.

The point of relegation is that there is no such thing as true parity because some teams will be well run and some will not, so punish the poorly run teams and bring in other teams that are run well. That will IMPROVE parity not make it worse.

lol good catch there.

but relegating teams isnt fixing anything. who wants to sit in the middle of the pack and never improve? There is no draft in international soccer either and the same few teams win every year and the same handful of teams sit in the middle of the pack with no real hope bcuz they dont have the money to compete with the big boys.

JWO35
03-17-2016, 11:48 AM
no. terrible idea. theres already not enough parody in the league.

Wouldn't the threat of relegation make bottom feeding teams try even harder?
I know this wouldn't magically make them championship caliber teams, but it would force them to actually try to put a wining product out every night instead of flat out tanking for high draft picks. IMO something like this would actually help parity become more common.


I totally agree with the relegation and promotion idea. That thought has been in my mind for quite some time.

If you look at soccer leagues, teams who make good hires and good personnel decisions are rewarded by staying in the league and gaining all the benefits from being there. Teams who don't have good people in those positions (front office) have a tough time staying in the league.

The NBA is set up to protect franchises. Our leagues are much different than in the rest of the world. It's more focused on the league being successful so the teams have to look out for themselves and make good decisions. The reason for this is because there's so many teams in the lower leagues looking to take your team's slot in the league that the league doesn't have to protect the club.

Instead of teams tanking, they could drop off out of the league for a year or 2. This would force teams to compete every year even if they're trying to rebuild. Great for fans imo.

If you take a look at Leeds United in England, they overspent themselves and haven't been back to England's top soccer league in a while. Same could be said for NBA teams in promotion/relegation as well. Sign under performing players to massive contracts and you're going to have money problems.

Like the idea of a loan system. So, pro basketball could go back to when high school grads were eligible and teams could draft them and loan them out to a lower league to get them some experience. Good way for smaller clubs to try to keep up with big market teams by taking the players with the most talent potential.

Love the idea of allowing HS players to be drafted again....if HS players are allowed to get drafted, but are still restricted from entering the NBA until the age of 19 (forcing the NBA teams to loan them out to the D-League) would help increase the interest of the D-League teams as well.
If LeBron was forced to play for the Ft. Wayne Mad Antz for a 1yr I'm sure they would have had sellouts every game.

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 11:49 AM
I'd be totally for it, but it would never fly.

I also really like the idea of the team that misses the playoffs with the best record gets rewarded the pick. The blatant tanking teams would cry bloody murder but it's more doable.

At the end of the day it's pretty sad that you have to devise new systems and almost shame teams into actually trying to compete...

yup keep the bad teams and the good teams good, that solve everything! Imagine if OKC decided not to make the playoffs last year so they could have the top pick instead? brilliant idea.

PhillyFaninLA
03-17-2016, 11:51 AM
Horrible idea in my opinion and in a multi billion dollar league won't happen...no owner would agree, no commissioner would risk there job like that, players, advertisers, sponsors, and fan bases would not go for it


edit:

While I don't agree with the initial idea, it is not a horrible idea. I misunderstood the idea proposed.

PhillyFaninLA
03-17-2016, 11:52 AM
The issue is the nature of the sport. One player can truly change a franchise. In no other team sport can any one player make that much of a difference.

PhillyFaninLA
03-17-2016, 11:56 AM
Seems like we have this topic every month. Im still with the idea that the draft order should by the best winning % of all non play-off teams last 32 games. Makes every team try and win every game.

I can still see teams that are at the 8th spot in the play-offs tanking at the end of the season to drop out if they are in line for a top draft pick. I have no problem with that if it can make a mid-tier team a top team.

My thought is you do exactly what you are now but with one change. The number one of the pick goes in alphabetical order from team to team.

or

you change the rules for the top 3 picks....If you win the lottery you cannot be a top 3 pick for the next three seasons, 2nd pick means 2 years, 3rd pick means 1 year outside of top 3.

I like my second idea better. Also you cannot trade any of the top 3 picks, if you get one its your. You cannot trade a player taken any of the top 3 spots while they are still considered a rookie. (European stashed players and injured player are still considered rookies so ineligible to be traded).

JWO35
03-17-2016, 11:58 AM
lol good catch there.

but relegating teams isnt fixing anything. who wants to sit in the middle of the pack and never improve? There is no draft in international soccer either and the same few teams win every year and the same handful of teams sit in the middle of the pack with no real hope bcuz they dont have the money to compete with the big boys.

Couldn't you make the case this is the current state of the NBA right now?
Since 1990(25yrs) only 9 teams have won a NBA title....that's less than 1/3rd of the league.

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 12:02 PM
thats def the current state but the draft, FA and trading is a way to change that. Some teams just accept it or have poor management that doesnt know what theyre doing. A league worth so much cant afford to relegate teams in its major markets.

Tony_Starks
03-17-2016, 12:08 PM
yup keep the bad teams and the good teams good, that solve everything! Imagine if OKC decided not to make the playoffs last year so they could have the top pick instead? brilliant idea.

Theoretically speaking if a team was bad enough to miss the playoffs, but good enough to be really close to making it, adding a top pick would cause them to cease being bad. So a bad team would actually become good.

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 12:12 PM
lol you are the worst. why is it the 2 worst and most annoying posters currently are Lakers fans?

Scoots
03-17-2016, 12:42 PM
Like the idea of a loan system. So, pro basketball could go back to when high school grads were eligible and teams could draft them and loan them out to a lower league to get them some experience. Good way for smaller clubs to try to keep up with big market teams by taking the players with the most talent potential.

That is already a stated goal. The NBA is just taking their time expanding the d-league. But the plan is for each team to have a d-league affiliate.

Sportsguy9695
03-17-2016, 12:50 PM
Could implementing a promotion/relegation system similar to most soccer leagues cure tanking? If you finish in the bottom [number] you run the risk of being relegated to the D-League for a year. Allowing D-League teams to be promoted could also open the door for the NBA to expand outside of the US/North America as well...


Feel free to add your own ideas

I never really thought of something like this in the NBA but I dont think it would hurt to give it a try. but I doubt we will ever see it. the nba has something that works and brings in alot of money so why fix it if it ant broke

Scoots
03-17-2016, 12:55 PM
lol good catch there.

but relegating teams isnt fixing anything. who wants to sit in the middle of the pack and never improve? There is no draft in international soccer either and the same few teams win every year and the same handful of teams sit in the middle of the pack with no real hope bcuz they dont have the money to compete with the big boys.

But they don't have revenue sharing either and the NBA does.

Also, I'd be for eliminating the draft, but with some restrictions on how many rookie players teams could sign and for how much total money.

Also, "the process" seems to have convinces Sixers fans that the only way to get out of the middle of the pack is to tank, or "be bad" but teams have done it before. The Warriors had a couple years of early exits from the playoffs, turned a 2nd round pick (Monta Ellis) into a starting center, and drafted well despite not having a top 5 pick. The best player on the Lakers for most of 2 decades was acquired in a trade.

I don't have a problem with the current system, though I think there should be some form of punishment for missing the playoffs in the NBA. Right now you are essentially rewarded for it. Speaking as a long time Warriors and NBA fan, bad ownership just sucks ... so allowing a bad owner to collect money earned by other teams who are trying to win for years upon years, AND rewarding them with marquee names to market for cheap year after year ... it seems wrong.

Sixers fans, I am NOT putting your team in with the above. I believe you have a pretty amazing owner who has stood by "the process" despite the slings and arrows he has faced.

PhillyFaninLA
03-17-2016, 01:01 PM
But they don't have revenue sharing either and the NBA does.

Also, I'd be for eliminating the draft, but with some restrictions on how many rookie players teams could sign and for how much total money.

Also, "the process" seems to have convinces Sixers fans that the only way to get out of the middle of the pack is to tank, or "be bad" but teams have done it before. The Warriors had a couple years of early exits from the playoffs, turned a 2nd round pick (Monta Ellis) into a starting center, and drafted well despite not having a top 5 pick. The best player on the Lakers for most of 2 decades was acquired in a trade.

I don't have a problem with the current system, though I think there should be some form of punishment for missing the playoffs in the NBA. Right now you are essentially rewarded for it. Speaking as a long time Warriors and NBA fan, bad ownership just sucks ... so allowing a bad owner to collect money earned by other teams who are trying to win for years upon years, AND rewarding them with marquee names to market for cheap year after year ... it seems wrong.

Sixers fans, I am NOT putting your team in with the above. I believe you have a pretty amazing owner who has stood by "the process" despite the slings and arrows he has faced.

You bring up a good point but you fail to take into account that your team had Ellis and Curry when they made the moves to put together the supporting pieces to build a true team. They had the developing superstar when they traded Ellis and when they started to bring in other pieces.

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 01:12 PM
I want to know why people think rebuilding though the draft is a bad thing that needs a cure.

It's not rebuilding that's the issue, it's sustained, deliberate tanking to get the best pick possible. It hurts the quality of the product, regional fanship, and the "integrity of the game" if that is important to you. Plus, it simply isn't proven to be successful.

Tony_Starks
03-17-2016, 01:26 PM
I think the tanking situation is almost like the hack-a-Shaq situation.

Silver was really inclined to not interfere and just let the league sort of figure it out and police itself, but now teams have abused it to the extent he's forced to step in this summer for the betterment of the game.

Same principle with tanking. At the end of the day it's about money and ticket buyers are not going to keep shelling out money for a inferior product under the guise of "give us a few years." That goes back to what's best for the league.

Now the tricky part is how are you going to define who's tanking and who to penalize? Philly is a easy case because they're on record with their "plan" but a lot of people make the argument the Lakers tanked it too but just dressed it up better/ tried to fool the public.

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 01:26 PM
There aren't enough NBA teams to promote/demote. D-league rosters fluctuate every year, and tend to be in smaller markets that a) can't afford NBA ticket prices, and b) don't have lucrative television deals. It makes no sense financially.

The answer has always been the same, if you want to stop people from tanking, remove the incentive to tank. Flat lottery, even chances for everyone 1-14, draw all picks not just the first 3.

The only tanking that would happen would be at the 8-9 spots, where some teams would tank out of the playoffs. You can eliminate that, too, by giving each lottery team 2 ping pong balls and each team eliminated in the first round one ping pong ball. The marginal incentive at that point is so small it doesn't matter: slightly better chances to move up in the draft (instead of no chance) vs substantially more revenue from playoff games. Players get paid almost nothing for the playoffs compared to their regular salary. It's almost pure profit for owners.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 01:38 PM
You bring up a good point but you fail to take into account that your team had Ellis and Curry when they made the moves to put together the supporting pieces to build a true team. They had the developing superstar when they traded Ellis and when they started to bring in other pieces.

Yes, but they didn't get Ellis or Curry with a top 5 pick, Curry was far from looking like a superstar at the time. They actually did tank for a year to add Barnes and in that tanking half a year they gave Thompson lots of run and he developed better than expected too. Curry looked good, but he also looked very fragile, and nobody had a ceiling for him anywhere near where he is now.

Luck plays a part in it, but drafting well, even not in the top 5, is critical.

PhillyFaninLA
03-17-2016, 01:41 PM
Yes, but they didn't get Ellis or Curry with a top 5 pick, Curry was far from looking like a superstar at the time. They actually did tank for a year to add Barnes and in that tanking half a year they gave Thompson lots of run and he developed better than expected too. Curry looked good, but he also looked very fragile, and nobody had a ceiling for him anywhere near where he is now.

Luck plays a part in it, but drafting well, even not in the top 5, is critical.


Excellent point...having the right people evaluating prospects and coaches to develop players are so important.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 01:47 PM
There aren't enough NBA teams to promote/demote. D-league rosters fluctuate every year, and tend to be in smaller markets that a) can't afford NBA ticket prices, and b) don't have lucrative television deals. It makes no sense financially.

The answer has always been the same, if you want to stop people from tanking, remove the incentive to tank. Flat lottery, even chances for everyone 1-14, draw all picks not just the first 3.

The only tanking that would happen would be at the 8-9 spots, where some teams would tank out of the playoffs. You can eliminate that, too, by giving each lottery team 2 ping pong balls and each team eliminated in the first round one ping pong ball. The marginal incentive at that point is so small it doesn't matter: slightly better chances to move up in the draft (instead of no chance) vs substantially more revenue from playoff games. Players get paid almost nothing for the playoffs compared to their regular salary. It's almost pure profit for owners.

Eliminate the draft.

In F1 the top teams get more money than the bottom teams. Punish teams financially for losing.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 01:58 PM
No, basketball and the NBA isn't soccer. The current system is perfectly fine, there is no team with a major advantage from any standpoint. Case in point: The New York Knicks. The best managed teams are the best teams, and vice versa. Over the last 18 years the two dominant franchises have been the Lakers and the Spurs. One very big market and one... not so very big market.

On the other side, tanking does not work. The NBA is the only one of the four major sports leagues that has any sort of lottery system and it works fantastically well. People constantly complain about tanking, but how many #1's has Philly had in recent years? Oddly enough it's been Cleveland racking them up, two of them with such dubiously low odds that have some people claiming that the lottery is rigged.

In the modern weighted lottery system (1990-present), the team with the worst record in the NBA has received the top pick just 4 times in 26 lotteries. In that time period the team with the 2nd worst record has won 4 times, 3rd worst has won 6 times and the team with the 5th worst has won 4 times. Teams that have finished 7th-14th worst record have won 5 times.

Simply put, under the current lottery system finishing with the 7th-14th worst record has yielded the top pick more than having the worst record. Not to mention that the lottery is for the top 3 picks and you routinely have teams outside of the top 3 move into it. There has even been years where all 3 top picks were made by teams with records outside of the top 3 worst (93 and 07). There are many years where two teams move up into the top 3.

The system is fine, it's perfect and requires no changes.

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 02:05 PM
No, basketball and the NBA isn't soccer. The current system is perfectly fine, there is no team with a major advantage from any standpoint. Case in point: The New York Knicks. The best managed teams are the best teams, and vice versa. Over the last 18 years the two dominant franchises have been the Lakers and the Spurs. One very big market and one... not so very big market.

On the other side, tanking does not work. The NBA is the only one of the four major sports leagues that has any sort of lottery system and it works fantastically well. People constantly complain about tanking, but how many #1's has Philly had in recent years? Oddly enough it's been Cleveland racking them up, two of them with such dubiously low odds that have some people claiming that the lottery is rigged.

In the modern weighted lottery system (1990-present), the team with the worst record in the NBA has received the top pick just 4 times in 26 lotteries. In that time period the team with the 2nd worst record has won 4 times, 3rd worst has won 6 times and the team with the 5th worst has won 4 times. Teams that have finished 7th-14th have won 5 times.

Simply put, under the current lottery system finishing with the 7th-14th record has yielded the top pick more than having the worst record. Not to mention that the lottery is for the top 3 picks and you routinely have teams outside of the top 3 move into it. There has even been years where all 3 top picks were made by teams with records outside of the top 3 worst (93 and 07). There are many years where two teams move up into the top 3.

The system is fine, it's perfect and requires no changes.

The issue is not the effectiveness of tanking, because it's not effective. It's that teams still do it, which hurts the image of the NBA, revenue, and competitiveness.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 02:15 PM
The issue is not the effectiveness of tanking, because it's not effective. It's that teams still do it, which hurts the image of the NBA, revenue, and competitiveness.

That is something that you can never prevent, because there's simply too much gray area to judge. What's the difference between a youth rebuild and tanking? Philly is the only team blatantly tanking, they're fairly open about it. So what happened? Colangelo is now there to stop that nonsense.

Any other team is simply rebuilding through youth or just flat out poorly managed. The Lakers have been chasing top FA's for years, but haven't been good enough to lure any there. So they pay what veterans they can get while maintaining future cap flexibility to keep chasing top FA's and adding top prospects. What are they supposed to do differently?

Scoots
03-17-2016, 02:41 PM
No, basketball and the NBA isn't soccer. The current system is perfectly fine, there is no team with a major advantage from any standpoint. Case in point: The New York Knicks. The best managed teams are the best teams, and vice versa. Over the last 18 years the two dominant franchises have been the Lakers and the Spurs. One very big market and one... not so very big market.

The system is fine, it's perfect and requires no changes.


In general I think the system isn't going to change to include relegation and I'm fine with that. However there are some clear merits that address what you mention above. Relegation would specifically get rid of poorly managed teams and promote the better managed teams from below. It's the only system that clearly promotes better management and demotes bad management and thus makes the top tier of the sport even better.

Also, San Antonio is not any where near a small market anymore. It's the 7th largest city in the US. So unless the ONLY big market teams are New York and LA then San Antonio shouldn't be considered small market.

OKC is 27th which is a lot smaller in the grand scheme of things ... and still ahead of Portland, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Cleveland, and New Orleans among NBA cities.

As for the current system being perfect ... every system can be improved, and the fact that the lottery has changed frequently since it's inception is somewhat telling in that regard. I think the current weighting is actually pretty good, but I do think the teams should be punished in some non-trivial way for finishing with bad records (but not something that effects the team on the court). Maybe not allow the owner to attend more games than the team won the previous year. I kind of like that one, it would have made a big difference to Sterling.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 03:14 PM
In general I think the system isn't going to change to include relegation and I'm fine with that. However there are some clear merits that address what you mention above. Relegation would specifically get rid of poorly managed teams and promote the better managed teams from below. It's the only system that clearly promotes better management and demotes bad management and thus makes the top tier of the sport even better.

Also, San Antonio is not any where near a small market anymore. It's the 7th largest city in the US. So unless the ONLY big market teams are New York and LA then San Antonio shouldn't be considered small market.

OKC is 27th which is a lot smaller in the grand scheme of things ... and still ahead of Portland, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Cleveland, and New Orleans among NBA cities.

As for the current system being perfect ... every system can be improved, and the fact that the lottery has changed frequently since it's inception is somewhat telling in that regard. I think the current weighting is actually pretty good, but I do think the teams should be punished in some non-trivial way for finishing with bad records (but not something that effects the team on the court). Maybe not allow the owner to attend more games than the team won the previous year. I kind of like that one, it would have made a big difference to Sterling.

The problems with comparing the NBA with the soccer leagues and the relegation system is how that works. For starters, the NBA D-League is a minor league system for these NBA teams, most of them being ones that are ultimately overseen by NBA franchises. Relegation would also suggest that D-League teams would have any chance in hell in competing with NBA teams.

Jimmer Fredette was the NBA D-League All-Star game MVP this year and couldn't even get on the court for the Knicks during his 10-day call up. The Knicks have the worst guard play in the NBA and couldn't get this guy on the court for anything but a little garbage time. Ricky Ledo, a Knicks cast off from last year, has dropped multiple 40 point games in the D-League this year. It stands for the Developmental League, it's not a stand alone league that can in any way compete with NBA teams.

The soccer leagues are all independently run teams, not to mention that the fear of relegation has extremely shady and corrupt business practices done. Players are legit sold to other teams for insane amounts of money, not even traded for talent. Soccer is extremely broken as a league, regardless of it's popularity. If the NBA were soccer, teams like the Knicks and Lakers would be buying players like Karl Anthony Towns for $40M or something. Their system actually calls for far less parity and tanking, because for the teams who can't compete players become just monetary assets that can be sold to the highest bidder.

The only way relegation would work is if you split the NBA into two leagues, or 16 and 14. Current playoff teams vs non playoff teams, and then have by adjustment much small playoff fields of 8 total teams for each league. And then, what would be the point? You would have talented players stuck on these garbage teams in the lesser league.

How would FA work? Would players from the B league still be able to freely move to the A league if someone would have them? Why would any FA player from an A league team move to a B league team? Since one league is clearly superior, what happens with contracts? If a max player in the A league is getting $30M, do max players in the B league start at $15M? How would owners of B league teams justify earning the same league revenue as A league teams, when those games would be far less popular and as a result generate far less revenue? Who is lining up to watch a league where the best teams are the Chicago Bulls and Utah Jazz of this year, when they can watch the A league that is essentially playoff basketball all year by todays standards?

It would completely kill and segregate the entire NBA system for no reason.

As far as the Spurs, yeah OKC is a better example but I was talking about the most successful franchises for a very long period of time. SA has grown, but even as the 7th largest city it's still nowhere near the size of cities like New York and LA. There is a clear population and wealth gap, much like you can say the difference in record between the best NBA record, Warriors at 61-6, and the 7th best NBA record, Miami Heat at 39-28.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 03:23 PM
The problems with comparing the NBA with the soccer leagues and the relegation system is how that works. For starters, the NBA D-League is a minor league system for these NBA teams, most of them being ones that are ultimately overseen by NBA franchises. Relegation would also suggest that D-League teams would have any chance in hell in competing with NBA teams.

<snip>

As far as the Spurs, yeah OKC is a better example but I was talking about the most successful franchises for a very long period of time. SA has grown, but even as the 7th largest city it's still nowhere near the size of cities like New York and LA. There is a clear population and wealth gap, much like you can say the difference in record between the best NBA record, Warriors at 61-6, and the 7th best NBA record, Miami Heat at 39-28.

I have said that relegation wasn't going to happen in the NBA, and for a lot of the reasons you mention here ... but that doesn't mean that if relegation were agreed upon it would be a bad thing overall for the quality of the franchises in the NBA overall. If nothing else it would make the end of the season more interesting for more fan bases.

On SA market size, like I said, if the 7th largest is small, then there are really only 2 big markets.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 03:57 PM
I have said that relegation wasn't going to happen in the NBA, and for a lot of the reasons you mention here ... but that doesn't mean that if relegation were agreed upon it would be a bad thing overall for the quality of the franchises in the NBA overall. If nothing else it would make the end of the season more interesting for more fan bases.

On SA market size, like I said, if the 7th largest is small, then there are really only 2 big markets.

I disagree, since any team designated to B league status would see their franchise worth completely plummet and nobody would want to own bottom feeder teams for risk of that happening if relegated. The league is doing great and just agree to a multi-billion dollar TV deal that will have the salary cap rising $40M over the next two years.

The Knicks are currently valued at $3B, most valuable in the league. The NFL's most valuable franchise is the Cowboys at $4B. 2nd most valuable is the Patriots at $3.2B. The Redskins are 3rd at $2.4B. The Knicks would comfortably be the 3rd most valuable franchise in the NFL. The NFL just saw a 38% rise in franchise value over the past year. The NBA has seen NBA franchise value triple over the past four seasons, with a 74% increase the past year alone. The NBA is closing the gap on the NFL with their current system. There has never been a better time to own an NBA franchise.

All relegation would do is shrink the league even further with no one wanting to own these bottom feeder franchises. There isn't even enough talent to field 30 competitive teams, let alone some extra ones for some B league. The eastern conference has pretty much been the B league the past 15 years as it is.

da ThRONe
03-17-2016, 04:09 PM
Just get rid of Max contracts with the current cap situation problem solved. When guys have to choose between 8 and 9 figures or teaming up you'll see more balanced rosters. Teams with money to spend can change to contenders over night similar to the NFL. Right now getting lucky in the lottery is the best way to become a contender if your team isn't in a glamour market.

Oefarmy2005
03-17-2016, 04:11 PM
Because fans of teams like the Kings and Wolves deserve better after 10+ years of this nonsense. Inept owners hold onto the team and make bad mistake after bad mistake crippling their own franchise because there is essentially not enough of a penalty. Your "penalty" is breaking a profit with your eyes closed off of luxury tax or profit sharing payments, and potentially a perennial all-star in the draft. That's no penalty at all. They basically have nothing to lose, not even profits.

Not sure I agree with this idea, but I agree something has to give. Teams like the Sixers who were paying at least 3 coaches at the same time (Mo Cheeks, Eddie Jordan, Doug Collins) and then proceeded to make one of the worst trades of all time for Bynum, and then get inherited by a new owner who decides he will let them keep on losing "until". There should be a little more accountability for the fans.

The worst point ever, at least the teams used. The problems with the Wolves over the last decade has actually been the opposite - not tanking enough and not having high enough picks. Their picks over the last 10 years have been: 14,6,7,3,(5,6),4,2,9,13,1 for an average of 6.36. Add to that horrible personnel decisions by Kahn and it's what you get. I can honestly only remember one year when the Wolves tanked out of those 10 and they were rewarded with Derrick Williams. Sacramento is even worse to make your point since their picks over the last 10 years have been: 23,19,10,12,4,5,7,5,7,8,6 for an average of 9.63. I don't know what you are trying to say since there have been some bad teams in the league over the last decade, but besides the 76ers, nobody has actively tanked.

2-ONE-5
03-17-2016, 04:14 PM
In general I think the system isn't going to change to include relegation and I'm fine with that. However there are some clear merits that address what you mention above. Relegation would specifically get rid of poorly managed teams and promote the better managed teams from below. It's the only system that clearly promotes better management and demotes bad management and thus makes the top tier of the sport even better.

Also, San Antonio is not any where near a small market anymore. It's the 7th largest city in the US. So unless the ONLY big market teams are New York and LA then San Antonio shouldn't be considered small market.

OKC is 27th which is a lot smaller in the grand scheme of things ... and still ahead of Portland, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Cleveland, and New Orleans among NBA cities.

As for the current system being perfect ... every system can be improved, and the fact that the lottery has changed frequently since it's inception is somewhat telling in that regard. I think the current weighting is actually pretty good, but I do think the teams should be punished in some non-trivial way for finishing with bad records (but not something that effects the team on the court). Maybe not allow the owner to attend more games than the team won the previous year. I kind of like that one, it would have made a big difference to Sterling.

how can you punish an injury riddled team though? Like wht are you supposed to do if your star or 2-3 starters go down?

Oefarmy2005
03-17-2016, 04:43 PM
Eliminate the draft.

In F1 the top teams get more money than the bottom teams. Punish teams financially for losing.

This is so stupid. Small market/cold climate teams already have a hard time getting free agents, punishing them financially would be plain stupid and would only make matters worse. Most teams that have won over the last 2 decades have been big market teams that attracted/traded and paid big free agents, except for SAS and last year. Lakers signed Shaq in the Kobe/Shaq era, Miami signed Shaq for the 2006 chip, Boston traded for the big three and was way over the cap for 3 years, Dallas always bought their rosters excluding Dirk, Lakers traded and paid insane money to Gasol/Kobe, the big 3 in Miami, e.t.c. What needs to be fixed is much harsher over the cap penalties to create parity for small market teams to sign big name FAs, then the league will balance out and there will be less bad teams, until then - they only way for a small market team to get good is to draft high for 5 years(like in the top 5) and hope that 3/5 players pan out.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 05:24 PM
The only way you could "cure" tanking would be to change the penalty on not meeting the salary cap floor or change some guidelines in that area. There is zero excuse for an NBA team to be below that threshold. Again, it brings you to Philly, the only team that is blatantly tanking. They acquired and then waived both JaVale McGee and Gerald Wallace just so they could have their $22M of dead cap space and reach the salary cap floor.

That's ridiculous and the type of loopholing that should lead to rule changes. They do this to keep cycling DLeague players as their top played player is Carl Landry at $6.5M. The next highest paid player on the roster who isn't on a rookie deal, aka was signed using cap space, is Kendall Marshall at $2.1M. This is why Colangelo was brought it, because no agent or player wants to deal with Philly because of that type of nonsense.

Portland did something similar with Varejao, but they also signed Aminu and Davis to deals starting at at $8M and $7M, and are clearly fielding a competitive team. Philly has $28M in dead cap space while having a league leading $6.4M in cap space. Those things don't add up.

Colangelo being there should be the stop of this type of dealings, but we'll see. I'm not sure what rule changes could prevent that either. Maybe there being a waive exception, similar to the MLE so that it doesn't kick it unless you are at the salary cap floor? I don't know.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:05 PM
Any other team is simply rebuilding through youth or just flat out poorly managed. The Lakers have been chasing top FA's for years, but haven't been good enough to lure any there. So they pay what veterans they can get while maintaining future cap flexibility to keep chasing top FA's and adding top prospects. What are they supposed to do differently?

Are you under the impression that the Lakers are not tanking? They are, just not at the same level as the Sixers.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:13 PM
I disagree, since any team designated to B league status would see their franchise worth completely plummet and nobody would want to own bottom feeder teams for risk of that happening if relegated. The league is doing great and just agree to a multi-billion dollar TV deal that will have the salary cap rising $40M over the next two years.

The Knicks are currently valued at $3B, most valuable in the league. The NFL's most valuable franchise is the Cowboys at $4B. 2nd most valuable is the Patriots at $3.2B. The Redskins are 3rd at $2.4B. The Knicks would comfortably be the 3rd most valuable franchise in the NFL. The NFL just saw a 38% rise in franchise value over the past year. The NBA has seen NBA franchise value triple over the past four seasons, with a 74% increase the past year alone. The NBA is closing the gap on the NFL with their current system. There has never been a better time to own an NBA franchise.

All relegation would do is shrink the league even further with no one wanting to own these bottom feeder franchises. There isn't even enough talent to field 30 competitive teams, let alone some extra ones for some B league. The eastern conference has pretty much been the B league the past 15 years as it is.

I never said it was going to happen, or even made arguments about it's likelihood, or about the value of franchises, so i have no idea where you are arguing from with regards to my posts.

People are desperate to buy into NBA franchises. That's why they are so valuable. If the number of teams doubled and were owned by the same people then revenue would go up a little overall, and the best 30 teams would be in the upper league. If a billionaire bought a bottom tier team and got a good GM he could build the team to the point he could move up in a few years.

The market size idea is broken. Miami is the 50th largest city in the US and they manage. There are only 30 teams so there are plenty of bigger cities to work with.

The franchises might be worth less, but I wasn't talking about the value of the franchise.

As far as talent is concerned, there is plenty of talent, what there isn't is enough minutes for all the talent to play. That's why the d-league is a good idea.

Again ... relegation is not going to happen. I never said it was without issues. I just said it has some merits.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:17 PM
Just get rid of Max contracts with the current cap situation problem solved. When guys have to choose between 8 and 9 figures or teaming up you'll see more balanced rosters. Teams with money to spend can change to contenders over night similar to the NFL. Right now getting lucky in the lottery is the best way to become a contender if your team isn't in a glamour market.

I don't know that getting rid of max contracts would make things more even. The max was created to make it more even. The issue of no max is that a team can screw themselves by falling in love with one player. Sure Cleveland could have maybe kept LeBron by giving him a 15 year contract at $60M a year, but they would not win and the league would not be more balanced. Max contracts mean that a single team can have multiple quality players. The Warriors drafted Curry, Thompson, Green, Barnes, Ezeli ... should they not be able to keep the players they drafted and developed because they would have to compete with Charlotte offering Curry $80M a year?

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:24 PM
how can you punish an injury riddled team though? Like wht are you supposed to do if your star or 2-3 starters go down?

Injury riddled teams are usually mismanaged. And I'm not suggesting punishing the team, but punishing the owner.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:27 PM
This is so stupid. Small market/cold climate teams already have a hard time getting free agents, punishing them financially would be plain stupid and would only make matters worse. Most teams that have won over the last 2 decades have been big market teams that attracted/traded and paid big free agents, except for SAS and last year. Lakers signed Shaq in the Kobe/Shaq era, Miami signed Shaq for the 2006 chip, Boston traded for the big three and was way over the cap for 3 years, Dallas always bought their rosters excluding Dirk, Lakers traded and paid insane money to Gasol/Kobe, the big 3 in Miami, e.t.c. What needs to be fixed is much harsher over the cap penalties to create parity for small market teams to sign big name FAs, then the league will balance out and there will be less bad teams, until then - they only way for a small market team to get good is to draft high for 5 years(like in the top 5) and hope that 3/5 players pan out.

Are you under the impression that NBA teams are the principle source of income for most of the owners? I'm not suggesting you penalize the team's cap, but the owner. The lost income will come, but rule, from the owners portion of the take, not the player portion.

The best way to make the NBA better is to get better owners or make the current owners really want to get better. Right now there is nearly no external incentive for them to have better teams.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 06:36 PM
The only way you could "cure" tanking would be to change the penalty on not meeting the salary cap floor or change some guidelines in that area. There is zero excuse for an NBA team to be below that threshold. Again, it brings you to Philly, the only team that is blatantly tanking. They acquired and then waived both JaVale McGee and Gerald Wallace just so they could have their $22M of dead cap space and reach the salary cap floor.

That's ridiculous and the type of loopholing that should lead to rule changes. They do this to keep cycling DLeague players as their top played player is Carl Landry at $6.5M. The next highest paid player on the roster who isn't on a rookie deal, aka was signed using cap space, is Kendall Marshall at $2.1M. This is why Colangelo was brought it, because no agent or player wants to deal with Philly because of that type of nonsense.

Portland did something similar with Varejao, but they also signed Aminu and Davis to deals starting at at $8M and $7M, and are clearly fielding a competitive team. Philly has $28M in dead cap space while having a league leading $6.4M in cap space. Those things don't add up.

Colangelo being there should be the stop of this type of dealings, but we'll see. I'm not sure what rule changes could prevent that either. Maybe there being a waive exception, similar to the MLE so that it doesn't kick it unless you are at the salary cap floor? I don't know.

There is already a penalty for being below the cap floor, they have to pay the players on the roster the money to get up to that floor.

Philly is not the only tanking team.

Colangelo is not against "the process", they are just to the point where they want to start pulling out of it. They are not going to be major players in next years free agent crop and they will probably be buyers on some bad veteran contracts again next year, but I expect them to field a better team next year and each year for the near future.

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 07:02 PM
That is something that you can never prevent, because there's simply too much gray area to judge. What's the difference between a youth rebuild and tanking? Philly is the only team blatantly tanking, they're fairly open about it. So what happened? Colangelo is now there to stop that nonsense.

Any other team is simply rebuilding through youth or just flat out poorly managed. The Lakers have been chasing top FA's for years, but haven't been good enough to lure any there. So they pay what veterans they can get while maintaining future cap flexibility to keep chasing top FA's and adding top prospects. What are they supposed to do differently?

You just contradicted the idea that the system is fine the way it is. There are flaws you just say they are unavoidable, which they are not. Nothing I said requires anyone to decide whether a team is "rebuilding" or "tanking". You do away with tanking altogether by simply eliminating the incentive. You will see much more competitive games and the league will do better financially on the whole.

The Lakers specifically simply held onto Kobe too long. Now that was ultimately for financial reasons, but when you have a guy playing as badly as he has been, choking your cap and gobbling up minutes, what top FAs were supposed to go there? They made bad decisions, which is why they are stuck where they are.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 07:15 PM
You just contradicted the idea that the system is fine the way it is. There are flaws you just say they are unavoidable, which they are not. Nothing I said requires anyone to decide whether a team is "rebuilding" or "tanking". You do away with tanking altogether by simply eliminating the incentive. You will see much more competitive games and the league will do better financially on the whole.

The Lakers specifically simply held onto Kobe too long. Now that was ultimately for financial reasons, but when you have a guy playing as badly as he has been, choking your cap and gobbling up minutes, what top FAs were supposed to go there? They made bad decisions, which is why they are stuck where they are.
I'd say the Lakers made good decisions. They want to lose games but not fans or money. They have done exactly that.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 07:41 PM
Are you under the impression that the Lakers are not tanking? They are, just not at the same level as the Sixers.

Oh no, not this again. You never answered me about the Knicks and whether or not they are tanking by signing Robin Lopez and Arron Afflalo instead of DeAndre Jordan.

If the Lakers wanted to tank, they would not have resigned Kobe and instead fielded a mix of rookies and Dleaguers like the 76ers do. They clearly don't do that, as they have plenty of vets making plenty of money. What should they be doing differently? You think that having the worst 3 year stretch in Laker history is a plan? Do you not understand the prestige and different set of standards that organization has? Maybe it'll be a bit more clear when Jeannie kicks Jim and/or Kupchak to the curb. The Lakers don't wait on 5-10 year rebuilds like the 76ers :laugh:

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 07:45 PM
I never said it was going to happen, or even made arguments about it's likelihood, or about the value of franchises, so i have no idea where you are arguing from with regards to my posts.

People are desperate to buy into NBA franchises. That's why they are so valuable. If the number of teams doubled and were owned by the same people then revenue would go up a little overall, and the best 30 teams would be in the upper league. If a billionaire bought a bottom tier team and got a good GM he could build the team to the point he could move up in a few years.

The market size idea is broken. Miami is the 50th largest city in the US and they manage. There are only 30 teams so there are plenty of bigger cities to work with.

The franchises might be worth less, but I wasn't talking about the value of the franchise.

As far as talent is concerned, there is plenty of talent, what there isn't is enough minutes for all the talent to play. That's why the d-league is a good idea.

Again ... relegation is not going to happen. I never said it was without issues. I just said it has some merits.

There's just not nearly enough talent to do that, though. The best players in the D-League are end of bench players in the NBA. You can take the D-League All-Star team, and MVP Jimmer Fredette, and they have absolutely no chance of competing if they were to be moved into the league.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 07:57 PM
You just contradicted the idea that the system is fine the way it is. There are flaws you just say they are unavoidable, which they are not. Nothing I said requires anyone to decide whether a team is "rebuilding" or "tanking". You do away with tanking altogether by simply eliminating the incentive. You will see much more competitive games and the league will do better financially on the whole.

The Lakers specifically simply held onto Kobe too long. Now that was ultimately for financial reasons, but when you have a guy playing as badly as he has been, choking your cap and gobbling up minutes, what top FAs were supposed to go there? They made bad decisions, which is why they are stuck where they are.

But there is no incentive to tank, it doesn't work. The modern lottery system has proven this over the last 26 years where having a record ranked 7th-14th has yielded the top pick more than having the worst record. There is plenty incentive to not tank, and that's why teams really don't do it. Sure, a team may accept their fate for one season if they're young or are injury riddled, but as a foundation no. Only the current 76ers do that, and as we can see it's really not working. Maybe this will be the year they finally get #1, who knows. Still doesn't guarantee anything because Cleveland had back to back #1's before LeBron came back and did absolutely nothing.

Here are the primary odds breakdown,

1st worst record - .250 for #1, .215 for #2, .178 for #3, .357 for #4
2nd worst record - .199 for #1, .188 for #2, .171 for #3, .319 for #4, .123 for #5
3rd worst record - .156 for #1, .157 for #2, .156 for #3, .226 for #4, .265 for #5, .040 for #6
4th worst record - .119 for #1, .126 for #2, .133 for #3, .099 for #4, .351 for #5, .160 for #6, .012 for #7

That trend of having more odds to move down than up or even stay put continues with #5 with #6 still having a 30% chance of moving down to 7. The top 3 picks are the most penalized as the chances of moving down and multiple spots is actually the majority, which has proven true. It's simple math and has proven very successful to combat something like tanking.

So really, where is the incentive?

Raps18-19 Champ
03-17-2016, 08:11 PM
I'd bet 99 times out of 100 that in a 7 game series, the worst NBA team would beat the best D-League team.

And from a logical point of view, the NBA isn't in the business of wanting to lose money. Not to mention all the complaints that players would have playing in the D-League. Players like Kobe, Carmelo, Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, etc have all finished in the bottom 3 the past 5 years. You really think they'd be happy playing in the D-League?

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 08:37 PM
But there is no incentive to tank, it doesn't work. The modern lottery system has proven this over the last 26 years where having a record ranked 7th-14th has yielded the top pick more than having the worst record. There is plenty incentive to not tank, and that's why teams really don't do it. Sure, a team may accept their fate for one season if they're young or are injury riddled, but as a foundation no. Only the current 76ers do that, and as we can see it's really not working. Maybe this will be the year they finally get #1, who knows. Still doesn't guarantee anything because Cleveland had back to back #1's before LeBron came back and did absolutely nothing.

Here are the primary odds breakdown,

1st worst record - .250 for #1, .215 for #2, .178 for #3, .357 for #4
2nd worst record - .199 for #1, .188 for #2, .171 for #3, .319 for #4, .123 for #5
3rd worst record - .156 for #1, .157 for #2, .156 for #3, .226 for #4, .265 for #5, .040 for #6
4th worst record - .119 for #1, .126 for #2, .133 for #3, .099 for #4, .351 for #5, .160 for #6, .012 for #7

That trend of having more odds to move down than up or even stay put continues with #5 with #6 still having a 30% chance of moving down to 7. The top 3 picks are the most penalized as the chances of moving down and multiple spots is actually the majority, which has proven true. It's simple math and has proven very successful to combat something like tanking.

So really, where is the incentive?
A whole slew of teams were going with the "OKC model" not long ago. The fact that quite a few are middling teams now does not negate the fact that they tried to be bad for better draft position. Neither does the actual results of the ping pong balls. The lottery is essentially gambling, and every gambler will tell you that you play the odds. And the teams with the worst records have the best odds. The worst team has the best odds at #1, and a guarantee of no worse than 4th. That's incentive. Just because it hasn't really worked doesn't mean that people don't perceive an incentive there. In fact, it's patently obvious people see an incentive, as we're having a thread about how to do away with it.

FOXHOUND
03-17-2016, 08:56 PM
A whole slew of teams were going with the "OKC model" not long ago. The fact that quite a few are middling teams now does not negate the fact that they tried to be bad for better draft position. Neither does the actual results of the ping pong balls. The lottery is essentially gambling, and every gambler will tell you that you play the odds. And the teams with the worst records have the best odds. The worst team has the best odds at #1, and a guarantee of no worse than 4th. That's incentive. Just because it hasn't really worked doesn't mean that people don't perceive an incentive there. In fact, it's patently obvious people see an incentive, as we're having a thread about how to do away with it.

But there is far more incentive not to tank, as the idea of tanking would take a whole lot for an organization to agree to. The worst record has the best chance at #1 at 25%, this is true. They also have more chance at #4 at 35%, and more importantly the field has far more chance at #1 with 75%. This has been proven in history, as #1 has only won 4 out of 26, just 13% of the time.

You also have to look at the big picture. To tank would mean building a team that is horrible, then playing those very weak odds to get #1 to play even WEAKER odds that the #1 pick there is going to be an Anthony Davis instead of an Anthony Bennett. OK, let's say you even get Anthony Davis. The Pelicans didn't make the playoffs until his 3rd season and, thanks to poor building around him, are right back to one of the worst records in the league.

So, as an owner you have to agree to be a bad team for at least 4 years if you get an INCREDIBLE #1 pick at INCREDIBLE odds. This means lowers all prices to keep people coming, doing bad on marketing/sponsorship etc. As a GM, you have to put your job and career on the line for what's really a 13% chance based on actual history to even get the #1 pick and that you get a LeBron/Durant/Davis instead of a Bogut/Bargnani/Bennett/the many more #1's who are not those people. Then as a coach, you have to deal with years of horrible records which again puts your career on the line.

There is no incentive to tanking, the 76ers are just the first team crazy enough to try it because the owner was willing to buy into this process. Colangelo is there now, that curtain is falling. If you use that window, if they get an amazing #1 and are 3 years away from the postseason that would mean it took 6 years to just get into the postseason. The other problem, nobody in this draft is anywhere close to a LeBron/Durant/Davis. You simply don't have 5 years to miss the playoffs, let alone be one of the worst teams in the NBA, and keep your job in this profession. Until this 76ers owner, at least.

JWO35
03-17-2016, 09:07 PM
I'd bet 99 times out of 100 that in a 7 game series, the worst NBA team would beat the best D-League team.

And from a logical point of view, the NBA isn't in the business of wanting to lose money. Not to mention all the complaints that players would have playing in the D-League. Players like Kobe, Carmelo, Anthony Davis, Kevin Garnett, etc have all finished in the bottom 3 the past 5 years. You really think they'd be happy playing in the D-League?

IMO this season proves that players like Carmelo, Kobe, and KG are perfectly content with being part of mediocre teams. Sure they probably wanted their team to go hard in free agency, but when that failed the tanking process starts immediately. The Lakers nor Knicks made moves to improve their teams, why? Because they are accepting their fate of being one of the worse teams in the NBA...like another user said a tanking team has all to gain and nothing to lose. Making low performing teams suffer relegation would make GMs/Owners and Players less likely to throw in the towel when things don't go their way in the draft, free agency, etc. and wait "for next year".

There's no denying there is a clear talent gap between the NBA and D-League but a few post in this thread IMO presented solid ideas to lessen the gap.

KB24PG16
03-17-2016, 09:29 PM
just cut off profit sharing to teams who don't make the playoffs for five consecutive years. sort of like a luxury tax if you terrible for so many years, you'll pay for it. owners will feel the need to improve or lose money until they sell the team and hopefully a competent owner steps in

Scoots
03-17-2016, 09:31 PM
Oh no, not this again. You never answered me about the Knicks and whether or not they are tanking by signing Robin Lopez and Arron Afflalo instead of DeAndre Jordan.

If the Lakers wanted to tank, they would not have resigned Kobe and instead fielded a mix of rookies and Dleaguers like the 76ers do. They clearly don't do that, as they have plenty of vets making plenty of money. What should they be doing differently? You think that having the worst 3 year stretch in Laker history is a plan? Do you not understand the prestige and different set of standards that organization has? Maybe it'll be a bit more clear when Jeannie kicks Jim and/or Kupchak to the curb. The Lakers don't wait on 5-10 year rebuilds like the 76ers :laugh:
No. The knicks are/were mismanaged.

You do sign Kobe planning to tank because you are the Lakers and don't want to damage tge brand.

IndyRealist
03-17-2016, 09:31 PM
But there is far more incentive not to tank, as the idea of tanking would take a whole lot for an organization to agree to. The worst record has the best chance at #1 at 25%, this is true. They also have more chance at #4 at 35%, and more importantly the field has far more chance at #1 with 75%. This has been proven in history, as #1 has only won 4 out of 26, just 13% of the time.

You also have to look at the big picture. To tank would mean building a team that is horrible, then playing those very weak odds to get #1 to play even WEAKER odds that the #1 pick there is going to be an Anthony Davis instead of an Anthony Bennett. OK, let's say you even get Anthony Davis. The Pelicans didn't make the playoffs until his 3rd season and, thanks to poor building around him, are right back to one of the worst records in the league.

So, as an owner you have to agree to be a bad team for at least 4 years if you get an INCREDIBLE #1 pick at INCREDIBLE odds. This means lowers all prices to keep people coming, doing bad on marketing/sponsorship etc. As a GM, you have to put your job and career on the line for what's really a 13% chance based on actual history to even get the #1 pick and that you get a LeBron/Durant/Davis instead of a Bogut/Bargnani/Bennett/the many more #1's who are not those people. Then as a coach, you have to deal with years of horrible records which again puts your career on the line.

There is no incentive to tanking, the 76ers are just the first team crazy enough to try it because the owner was willing to buy into this process. Colangelo is there now, that curtain is falling. If you use that window, if they get an amazing #1 and are 3 years away from the postseason that would mean it took 6 years to just get into the postseason. The other problem, nobody in this draft is anywhere close to a LeBron/Durant/Davis. You simply don't have 5 years to miss the playoffs, let alone be one of the worst teams in the NBA, and keep your job in this profession. Until this 76ers owner, at least.

If you go back to any post I've made in this thread, you'll see I said tanking doesn't work. That doesn't mean teams don't perceive an incentive to tank. Teams tanked on purpose for years, stockpiling draft picks and playing the odds. Let's not pretend that the Sixers are the first and only team to do this, they just are the most prominent currently. People believe in the "treadmill of mediocrity", and teams actively avoided it. That is mutually exclusive from believing that tanking doesn't work.

If what you say is true, and that there is no incentive to tank, then why not just make it a flat lottery? Because if the argument is that a weighted lottery helps bad teams, then it BY DEFINITION is incentive to be as bad as possible.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 09:32 PM
There's just not nearly enough talent to do that, though. The best players in the D-League are end of bench players in the NBA. You can take the D-League All-Star team, and MVP Jimmer Fredette, and they have absolutely no chance of competing if they were to be moved into the league.
There is enough talent. The NBA is not doing a good enough job maximizing it.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 09:33 PM
But there is no incentive to tank, it doesn't work. The modern lottery system has proven this over the last 26 years where having a record ranked 7th-14th has yielded the top pick more than having the worst record. There is plenty incentive to not tank, and that's why teams really don't do it. Sure, a team may accept their fate for one season if they're young or are injury riddled, but as a foundation no. Only the current 76ers do that, and as we can see it's really not working. Maybe this will be the year they finally get #1, who knows. Still doesn't guarantee anything because Cleveland had back to back #1's before LeBron came back and did absolutely nothing.

Here are the primary odds breakdown,

1st worst record - .250 for #1, .215 for #2, .178 for #3, .357 for #4
2nd worst record - .199 for #1, .188 for #2, .171 for #3, .319 for #4, .123 for #5
3rd worst record - .156 for #1, .157 for #2, .156 for #3, .226 for #4, .265 for #5, .040 for #6
4th worst record - .119 for #1, .126 for #2, .133 for #3, .099 for #4, .351 for #5, .160 for #6, .012 for #7

That trend of having more odds to move down than up or even stay put continues with #5 with #6 still having a 30% chance of moving down to 7. The top 3 picks are the most penalized as the chances of moving down and multiple spots is actually the majority, which has proven true. It's simple math and has proven very successful to combat something like tanking.

So really, where is the incentive?
There is incentive to tank. Not for everybody. But denying the existence of the incentive is not something i can respond to ... It's illogical.

Raps18-19 Champ
03-17-2016, 09:39 PM
IMO this season proves that players like Carmelo, Kobe, and KG are perfectly content with being part of mediocre teams. Sure they probably wanted their team to go hard in free agency, but when that failed the tanking process starts immediately. The Lakers nor Knicks made moves to improve their teams, why? Because they are accepting their fate of being one of the worse teams in the NBA...like another user said a tanking team has all to gain and nothing to lose. Making low performing teams suffer relegation would make GMs/Owners and Players less likely to throw in the towel when things don't go their way in the draft, free agency, etc. and wait "for next year".

There's no denying there is a clear talent gap between the NBA and D-League but a few post in this thread IMO presented solid ideas to lessen the gap.

I don't think so. Maybe if you're at the end of your career as more of a coach like Garnett to Towns but otherwise, a prime player won't be happy losing.

Scoots
03-17-2016, 09:42 PM
Nobody was suggesting that this d-league should compete with the nba. If relegation were a thing the dleague would have to have a cap much closer to the nba cap. The dleague is weak because they don't have any money by design. The design would have to change.

Tanking ABSOLUTELY works. It doesn't guarantee success but it absolutely serves it's purpose some of the time. If the Lakers finish as the 4th pick or lower it has a definite and immediate impact on their future. To deny it is pure folly.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 12:35 AM
No. The knicks are/were mismanaged.

You do sign Kobe planning to tank because you are the Lakers and don't want to damage tge brand.

How is it mismanagement when the FA you target simply doesn't want to go there? That's what happened with the Knicks, because they've been bad. The same thing happened to the Lakers with Dwight, Pau, Melo, etc. You suggest the Lakers are tanking, but explain to me what they could have done differently to not tank? You realize being bad and/or rebuilding through youth isn't tanking, correct?

You don't think having the worst season and worst 3 season stretch in Laker history damages the brand more than anything? It won't look like such a masterplan when Jim Buss and Mitch Kupchak are no longer working for the Lakers. Or, in Jim's case, no longer handling basketball operations. That's where being that bad for years normally gets you.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 12:48 AM
If you go back to any post I've made in this thread, you'll see I said tanking doesn't work. That doesn't mean teams don't perceive an incentive to tank. Teams tanked on purpose for years, stockpiling draft picks and playing the odds. Let's not pretend that the Sixers are the first and only team to do this, they just are the most prominent currently. People believe in the "treadmill of mediocrity", and teams actively avoided it. That is mutually exclusive from believing that tanking doesn't work.

If what you say is true, and that there is no incentive to tank, then why not just make it a flat lottery? Because if the argument is that a weighted lottery helps bad teams, then it BY DEFINITION is incentive to be as bad as possible.

Rebuilding through the draft is not tanking though, they are not one and the same. Teams like Minnesota, Orlando, Milwaukee and the LA Lakers have been rebuilding through the draft and it shows. They have young talented players, at different positions who can actually play together. They build assets each year, but slowly because they are rebuilding. They are actively working to develop their players and build around them. That's a standard rebuild, there's nothing wrong with that.

The 76ers are in fact the first and only team to ever do what they are doing. They blatantly talk about "the process" and being bad every year in hopes of landing the next superstar in the draft. They keep siphoning off players for future picks, have $28M of dead cap space and still lead the league in cap space and have had roster turnover of over 70 players in just 3 years by revolving D-League players.

If you can find me another team that has blatantly tanked like they have over the past three years, I will gladly concede that they are not one of a kind. You can look at any of those previously mentioned teams and see what they're future lineups will look like. Can you do that with Philly? No, because they aren't building anything. They're just stockpiling BPA's and all at C lol.

When this process ultimately fails, and it will because Hinkie has already displayed that the aspect of team building is completely beyond his comprehension, they will fire Hinkie and he will never work as a GM again.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 12:56 AM
There is enough talent. The NBA is not doing a good enough job maximizing it.

:eyebrow:

Oh, come now. Now you just want to argue with me for some reason lol. Who are these 30 GM's and coaches not in the NBA who would magically maximize the lesser talent in the league?

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:04 AM
How is it mismanagement when the FA you target simply doesn't want to go there? That's what happened with the Knicks, because they've been bad. The same thing happened to the Lakers with Dwight, Pau, Melo, etc. You suggest the Lakers are tanking, but explain to me what they could have done differently to not tank? You realize being bad and/or rebuilding through youth isn't tanking, correct?

You don't think having the worst season and worst 3 season stretch in Laker history damages the brand more than anything? It won't look like such a masterplan when Jim Buss and Mitch Kupchak are no longer working for the Lakers. Or, in Jim's case, no longer handling basketball operations. That's where being that bad for years normally gets you.

The Knicks are not a talented roster, they've had bad drafts, made bad trades and bad free agent signings.

I think Lakers attendance was high this year, the year of Kobe. The casual fans don't seem to even care that they are losing, and doing it well.

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:11 AM
Rebuilding through the draft is not tanking though, they are not one and the same. Teams like Minnesota, Orlando, Milwaukee and the LA Lakers have been rebuilding through the draft and it shows. They have young talented players, at different positions who can actually play together. They build assets each year, but slowly because they are rebuilding. They are actively working to develop their players and build around them. That's a standard rebuild, there's nothing wrong with that.

The 76ers are in fact the first and only team to ever do what they are doing. They blatantly talk about "the process" and being bad every year in hopes of landing the next superstar in the draft. They keep siphoning off players for future picks, have $28M of dead cap space and still lead the league in cap space and have had roster turnover of over 70 players in just 3 years by revolving D-League players.

If you can find me another team that has blatantly tanked like they have over the past three years, I will gladly concede that they are not one of a kind. You can look at any of those previously mentioned teams and see what they're future lineups will look like. Can you do that with Philly? No, because they aren't building anything. They're just stockpiling BPA's and all at C lol.

When this process ultimately fails, and it will because Hinkie has already displayed that the aspect of team building is completely beyond his comprehension, they will fire Hinkie and he will never work as a GM again.

So you acknowledge that teams tank without doing it openly. Good to know.

Sometimes a "standard rebuild" includes tanking. Like the Warriors in 2011, Steph Curry and David Lee both said they were healthy enough to play regular minutes but the team said no ... because they were trying to lose enough games to keep their draft pick. It wasn't advertised in the paper or on TV as tanking, and they didn't start the season planning to tank, but it was a possibility, then they made their decision to try to keep the pick and finished 3-17 in a shortened season and managed to keep their pick. Without that tank job the Warriors don't have Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, or possibly Festus Ezeli.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:18 AM
The Knicks are not a talented roster, they've had bad drafts, made bad trades and bad free agent signings.

I think Lakers attendance was high this year, the year of Kobe. The casual fans don't seem to even care that they are losing, and doing it well.

The Knicks completely blew up their roster two years ago besides Melo. Yeah, they're bad. When you're bad you don't get the top FAs. It's no different than the Lakers.

This year? Sure, attendance is fine. They're on pace to set a franchise low in wins for the 3rd consecutive season. So, how about last year, when they tried to sign Melo but got denied? How about the year before, when they took out a billboard for Dwight and tried to resign Pau and were denied? How about this past offseason, when Aldridge and everyone else denied them? Was all of that tanking too? Part of this master plan to get denied by all of the top FA's for 3 years in a row now?

You keep avoiding the question, but for a team that is "tanking" you don't seem to have any suggestions to what they could have actually done differently. Hindsight is 20/20, but if you can't find anything with hindsight that should tell you enough. What should they have done differently than what they tried and failed at?

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:22 AM
:eyebrow:

Oh, come now. Now you just want to argue with me for some reason lol. Who are these 30 GM's and coaches not in the NBA who would magically maximize the lesser talent in the league?

You just want to argue with me for some reason. I was here first :)

There are people playing organized basketball all over the world. There is PLENTY of talent to find and develop another 450 players. There are players who are failures on one team, go to a different team that better uses their ability and they become good players, and the opposite is true ... just look at players picked up by the Spurs and players signed away from the Spurs ... they mostly do better with the Spurs. The NBA knows it and that's why they created the d-league. Some players take more time to develop. If you build it they will come.

There is nothing magical about it. It's a statistical fact that having a larger group to work with you will find more people who excel. If there were 30 more GM jobs some percentage would be great, some would be terrible, most would be okay at their jobs. Just like it is now. I guarantee you if NBA teams were allowed to have 4 rounds in the draft and have 30 players on their rosters they would not just throw those extra 2 picks away and not have a full roster. They would use the picks and develop the players.

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:24 AM
The Knicks completely blew up their roster two years ago besides Melo. Yeah, they're bad. When you're bad you don't get the top FAs. It's no different than the Lakers.

This year? Sure, attendance is fine. They're on pace to set a franchise low in wins for the 3rd consecutive season. So, how about last year, when they tried to sign Melo but got denied? How about the year before, when they took out a billboard for Dwight and tried to resign Pau and were denied? How about this past offseason, when Aldridge and everyone else denied them? Was all of that tanking too? Part of this master plan to get denied by all of the top FA's for 3 years in a row now?

You keep avoiding the question, but for a team that is "tanking" you don't seem to have any suggestions to what they could have actually done differently. Hindsight is 20/20, but if you can't find anything with hindsight that should tell you enough. What should they have done differently than what they tried and failed at?

I never said the Lakers were tanking for multiple years ... I said they are tanking now, you said they are not.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:27 AM
So you acknowledge that teams tank without doing it openly. Good to know.

Sometimes a "standard rebuild" includes tanking. Like the Warriors in 2011, Steph Curry and David Lee both said they were healthy enough to play regular minutes but the team said no ... because they were trying to lose enough games to keep their draft pick. It wasn't advertised in the paper or on TV as tanking, and they didn't start the season planning to tank, but it was a possibility, then they made their decision to try to keep the pick and finished 3-17 in a shortened season and managed to keep their pick. Without that tank job the Warriors don't have Draymond Green, Harrison Barnes, or possibly Festus Ezeli.

As you said, they didn't start the season planning to tank. That's a very drastic difference from a team that has had tanking as it's team slogan for 3 years now. Does it happen in season when the writing is on the wall, especially in odd cases like that Warriors one? Sure, it happens sometimes. It certainly worked for the Warriors in that scenario.

Knicks did it last year when Melo was hurt and they weren't going anywhere. Phil decided to blow it up. Did it work? Eh, not really as the Knicks moved from #2 to #4, let alone actually winning the lottery. They also won the last two games of the season, which prevented them from worst record and in an odd year the actual #1 pick. Thankfully, Hinkie doesn't know what he's doing and the Knicks were able to draft Porzingis at #4. It worked out in a happy accident way, but ultimately KAT was the goal.

There are plenty more examples of it failing than it working. People focus on the time it worked because they're notable, because they're rare. Know when tanking didn't work? When the Bulls moved from #9 to #1 to draft Derrick Rose. Stuff like that happens, teams #7-14 have gotten #1 more times than team #1. It doesn't work as a business model, never has and never will.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:32 AM
You just want to argue with me for some reason. I was here first :)

There are people playing organized basketball all over the world. There is PLENTY of talent to find and develop another 450 players. There are players who are failures on one team, go to a different team that better uses their ability and they become good players, and the opposite is true ... just look at players picked up by the Spurs and players signed away from the Spurs ... they mostly do better with the Spurs. The NBA knows it and that's why they created the d-league. Some players take more time to develop. If you build it they will come.

There is nothing magical about it. It's a statistical fact that having a larger group to work with you will find more people who excel. If there were 30 more GM jobs some percentage would be great, some would be terrible, most would be okay at their jobs. Just like it is now. I guarantee you if NBA teams were allowed to have 4 rounds in the draft and have 30 players on their rosters they would not just throw those extra 2 picks away and not have a full roster. They would use the picks and develop the players.

Haha :D

450 players? No way man. The Spurs are the worst example to use because they happen to have arguably the greatest coach of all time and have been the best run organization for the past 18 years. If it were that easy, every team would be finding gems as consistently as the Spurs.

Yeah, I agree that some would work out and some wouldn't, but where would these people come from? All of the top basketball talent in the world is already in the NBA. Fielding 30 more teams is an enormous order. Just adding an expansion team or two would dilute a lot of talent.

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:33 AM
As you said, they didn't start the season planning to tank. That's a very drastic difference from a team that has had tanking as it's team slogan for 3 years now. Does it happen in season when the writing is on the wall, especially in odd cases like that Warriors one? Sure, it happens sometimes. It certainly worked for the Warriors in that scenario.

Knicks did it last year when Melo was hurt and they weren't going anywhere. Phil decided to blow it up. Did it work? Eh, not really as the Knicks moved from #2 to #4, let alone actually winning the lottery. They also won the last two games of the season, which prevented them from worst record and in an odd year the actual #1 pick. Thankfully, Hinkie doesn't know what he's doing and the Knicks were able to draft Porzingis at #4. It worked out in a happy accident way, but ultimately KAT was the goal.

There are plenty more examples of it failing than it working. People focus on the time it worked because they're notable, because they're rare. Know when tanking didn't work? When the Bulls moved from #9 to #1 to draft Derrick Rose. Stuff like that happens, teams #7-14 have gotten #1 more times than team #1. It doesn't work as a business model, never has and never will.

So ... you acknowledge that the Lakers are tanking? And that tanking works? See, that's all I was saying all along.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:39 AM
I never said the Lakers were tanking for multiple years ... I said they are tanking now, you said they are not.

I just don't see how they're tanking when they went after the top FA's and simply failed to attract any. At that point, what were they supposed to do? I mean, do you realize that Robin Lopez met with them twice and chose the Knicks over them? It's not like they were sitting there hoping to lose on every FA. You call it tanking, I call it no one wanted to go there over other options so they got stuck with Roy Hibbert, Brandon Bass and Lou Williams. They even signed some 32-year old rookie from Brazil and brought back Ron Artest lol.

Why would they waste roster spots on those players instead of young guys who could potentially be finds, like another Jordan Clarkson? They're just bad, their actions and moves don't add up to tanking.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:40 AM
So ... you acknowledge that the Lakers are tanking? And that tanking works? See, that's all I was saying all along.

No, I acknowledge that the 76ers are tanking and have been for 3 years. We won't agree on the Lakers.

Scoots
03-18-2016, 01:41 AM
The Spurs are the worst example to use because they happen to have arguably the greatest coach of all time and have been the best run organization for the past 18 years. If it were that easy, every team would be finding gems as consistently as the Spurs.

That's the point, it's not easy ... good players are made bad on a regular basis by being on poorly run/coached teams. So we need to find a way to get better people running the teams and the best way to do that is to try as many different people in those roles as possible.

Oh, and even Pop tanked to get Tim Duncan.

FOXHOUND
03-18-2016, 01:50 AM
That's the point, it's not easy ... good players are made bad on a regular basis by being on poorly run/coached teams. So we need to find a way to get better people running the teams and the best way to do that is to try as many different people in those roles as possible.

Oh, and even Pop tanked to get Tim Duncan.

Those guys are already in the NBA as assistant coaches, assistant GM's etc. They get their chances, like Walton, like Lue, like Morey and now Hinkie etc. They work their way up learning from NBA GM's and coaches. To throw them out there earlier to the wolves with NBA expectations would just end a lot of career much earlier, and dilute the talent of those NBA organizations.

And yes, Duncan is the prime example of tanking. You know, something that happened 18 years ago haha. Show's how successful it is. It's not like Pop pulled a Tonya Harding on David Robinson or anything. That's filed under happy accident as much as tanking.

Scoots
03-18-2016, 10:30 AM
Those guys are already in the NBA as assistant coaches, assistant GM's etc. They get their chances, like Walton, like Lue, like Morey and now Hinkie etc. They work their way up learning from NBA GM's and coaches. To throw them out there earlier to the wolves with NBA expectations would just end a lot of career much earlier, and dilute the talent of those NBA organizations.

And yes, Duncan is the prime example of tanking. You know, something that happened 18 years ago haha. Show's how successful it is. It's not like Pop pulled a Tonya Harding on David Robinson or anything. That's filed under happy accident as much as tanking.

Sure, no coaches are overlooked and/or stuck behind other coaches and don't get a chance. All of the NBA teams are perfect at finding and developing talent and the only capable players in the world are already in the NBA and twas it ever thus.

Sure, the Lakers are doing all they can as an organization to win as many games as possible this year.

Sure, when I mention that the greatest coach of the current era tanked and it worked for him to the tune of one of the greatest players ever to play, all in response to people saying tanking doesn't work, what I meant was that was the only time it ever happened.

Does sarcasm work on you?

da ThRONe
03-19-2016, 01:46 PM
I don't know that getting rid of max contracts would make things more even. The max was created to make it more even. The issue of no max is that a team can screw themselves by falling in love with one player. Sure Cleveland could have maybe kept LeBron by giving him a 15 year contract at $60M a year, but they would not win and the league would not be more balanced. Max contracts mean that a single team can have multiple quality players. The Warriors drafted Curry, Thompson, Green, Barnes, Ezeli ... should they not be able to keep the players they drafted and developed because they would have to compete with Charlotte offering Curry $80M a year?

The thread is about ending tanking. The only way you can do that is by giving all teams an equal chance to be contenders through other means than the draft. So yes in the process teams like the Warriors would have to deal with the cost of being successful. So does the Denver Broncos. Nothing will ever be prefect if stopping tankers is the priority it's the simplest way to accomplish that goal.

Scoots
03-19-2016, 02:24 PM
The thread is about ending tanking. The only way you can do that is by giving all teams an equal chance to be contenders through other means than the draft. So yes in the process teams like the Warriors would have to deal with the cost of being successful. So does the Denver Broncos. Nothing will ever be prefect if stopping tankers is the priority it's the simplest way to accomplish that goal.

I just don't think getting rid of max contracts will keep teams from tanking. Let's say a team gives a player a HUGE contract and then that player gets injured for years ... the team still has that money on their cap and now their only chance to get better is to get better draft picks so they tank. The ability to pay huge money to players is no assurance teams are not still going to tank.

The ONLY way to get rid of tanking for sure is to eliminate the draft. That's too extreme for most people so I suggested that the owner can only attend as many games as the team won the year before.

da ThRONe
03-19-2016, 02:31 PM
I just don't think getting rid of max contracts will keep teams from tanking. Let's say a team gives a player a HUGE contract and then that player gets injured for years ... the team still has that money on their cap and now their only chance to get better is to get better draft picks so they tank. The ability to pay huge money to players is no assurance teams are not still going to tank.

The ONLY way to get rid of tanking for sure is to eliminate the draft. That's too extreme for most people so I suggested that the owner can only attend as many games as the team won the year before.

I guess saying "ending tanking" was the wrong term. Should have said limiting tanking.

Sure teams will strike out, but that's just the nature of the sport. And teams will always look to the draft to change to improve the team. However making more teams actual players in FA is the best way to limit tanking.

Scoots
03-19-2016, 02:47 PM
I guess saying "ending tanking" was the wrong term. Should have said limiting tanking.

Sure teams will strike out, but that's just the nature of the sport. And teams will always look to the draft to change to improve the team. However making more teams actual players in FA is the best way to limit tanking.

Eliminating max contracts would actually reduce competition in FA. If there is no limit then the team with the most cap space is pretty much the only team that can win. With max contracts more teams are able to offer the same contract.

Better teams are less likely to tank ... but the Spurs were a good team in 96 (they won 59 games), then they tanked in 97, got Duncan, and were a good team in 98.

Just like in MLB, at some point in the season teams are either buyers or sellers. In the NBA the trade deadline is early so trades are not allowed in the last third of the season ... but tanking is an option and the only way I know will work to reduce that is to reduce the value of the draft based on seeding. Since those solutions are fraught with other issues we need to come up with new solutions.

How about we take your money idea and turn it on it's head ... what if there were NO draft. But the team that finishes with the worst record gets the most money to spend on rookies, while the team that finishes with the best record gets the least money to spend on rookies. And other than that it's a free for all. The worst teams could offer their whole amount to 1 player or go after several players on more modest contracts. If you suck you get more money, but you'd do better to have a good story to tell to the rookies you are trying to recruit.

da ThRONe
03-19-2016, 05:26 PM
Eliminating max contracts would actually reduce competition in FA. If there is no limit then the team with the most cap space is pretty much the only team that can win. With max contracts more teams are able to offer the same contract.

Better teams are less likely to tank ... but the Spurs were a good team in 96 (they won 59 games), then they tanked in 97, got Duncan, and were a good team in 98.

Just like in MLB, at some point in the season teams are either buyers or sellers. In the NBA the trade deadline is early so trades are not allowed in the last third of the season ... but tanking is an option and the only way I know will work to reduce that is to reduce the value of the draft based on seeding. Since those solutions are fraught with other issues we need to come up with new solutions.

How about we take your money idea and turn it on it's head ... what if there were NO draft. But the team that finishes with the worst record gets the most money to spend on rookies, while the team that finishes with the best record gets the least money to spend on rookies. And other than that it's a free for all. The worst teams could offer their whole amount to 1 player or go after several players on more modest contracts. If you suck you get more money, but you'd do better to have a good story to tell to the rookies you are trying to recruit.

The Draft's not going anywhere. Smart management and luck will always be a factor. And bad teams will always exist. As such bad teams will do what's best to be better in the future. So ending tanking will never happen. However reducing IMO is more likely when teams that find it harder to secure talent via FA is given a better chance to do so.

So for example this summer Durant will be a FA. If a team has created cap space and can make a serious run at KD there's less incentive to tank.

Scoots
03-19-2016, 05:54 PM
The Draft's not going anywhere. Smart management and luck will always be a factor. And bad teams will always exist. As such bad teams will do what's best to be better in the future. So ending tanking will never happen. However reducing IMO is more likely when teams that find it harder to secure talent via FA is given a better chance to do so.

So for example this summer Durant will be a FA. If a team has created cap space and can make a serious run at KD there's less incentive to tank.

I agree that the draft isn't going anywhere soon. But you should be aware that most of the draft has already gone ... there used to be 21 rounds in the draft. It went down to 2 rounds in 1989. The players union wants no max contracts and no draft ... if the owners want more control those are things they could give back.

I still don't see how a non-playoff team being able to offer huge money to a player next year will significantly reduce the odds that they will tank this year. If in 96 the Spurs offered huge money to a top free agent they could point to their roster having won 59 games, had bad injury issues, they tanked, added the top player in the draft and now they are healthy. Free agents and their agents are smart enough to look at the quality of an organization and the talent on the roster rather than the previous seasons won/loss record. A free agent who goes for the most money isn't going to look at the record from the previous season.

beasted86
03-19-2016, 05:57 PM
just cut off profit sharing to teams who don't make the playoffs for five consecutive years. sort of like a luxury tax if you terrible for so many years, you'll pay for it. owners will feel the need to improve or lose money until they sell the team and hopefully a competent owner steps in

I think we're onto something here. No profit sharing, no luxury tax dividends either.

IndyRealist
03-19-2016, 08:05 PM
The thread is about ending tanking. The only way you can do that is by giving all teams an equal chance to be contenders through other means than the draft. So yes in the process teams like the Warriors would have to deal with the cost of being successful. So does the Denver Broncos. Nothing will ever be prefect if stopping tankers is the priority it's the simplest way to accomplish that goal.
I could easily see it having the opposite effect. By removing max contracts you will HAVE to pay Lebron/Curry/Durant a huge portion of your cap space. This limits your ability to bring in additional players through free agency, so your only route is to go for the best players you can through the draft, because they are on rookie scale contracts. Then when those players leave their rookie scale deal, you have restricted free agency and you just blow the cap to resign your own players.

DR_1
03-24-2016, 06:31 PM
That is already a stated goal. The NBA is just taking their time expanding the d-league. But the plan is for each team to have a d-league affiliate.

What are they trying to do with it?

Scoots
03-24-2016, 06:42 PM
What are they trying to do with it?

They want to increase the number of cities where they have a draw for the big teams. They want to help the teams develop players. The teams and players want bigger rosters and when every team has a d-league affiliate the NBA teams will have multiple players with minimum nba contracts who are protected in the d-league which right now is limited. They want a true developmental league.

The Warriors were already the top team in Santa Cruz, but the relationship with the Santa Cruz Warriors has definitely helped the team evaluate and develop players and develop the coastal market.

NYKalltheway
03-29-2016, 06:45 AM
I made a similar thread many years back [here: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?515721-Should-the-NBA-follow-a-European-model ]


The problem with the current setup of the NBA is that it cannot operate with a relegation/promotion system as is. The D-League is already a sort of farm league, not sure if those teams are actually independent.

In order to achieve this, you need to incorporate those D-Leagues into their parent teams and make them B teams, so players belong to the same team and can move at any time from senior to secondary team.

The thing here is that the USA has the potential to have a great system and exploit the whole land mass.

You could have a system with a top league of say 24 NBA teams. Then a secondary national division of another 24 teams. Something like bottom 4 are relegated and top 4 are promoted should be nice to keep things interesting and still have a large number of playoff teams, at 16. Then, the third division could be regional, as in 12-20 teams in each 'division'. Meaning that the bottom teams of each division would be relegated and the 2nd to bottom team would feature in a playoff game with the 2nd spot team of the third division to fight for a place in the next year's secondary division. This could spark great regional rivalries. And each 3rd tier league could then have a semi-pro league underneath it, ie 4th tier, where teams could potentially turn pro. No need to have a huge starting capital to start a team, and the NBA should find a way to trickle down the funds so that lower league teams aren't mismatched financially by a great margin.

The 'shrinking' of the league can be achieved in a 3-5 year span where new teams can form in the 2nd division, build better arenas maybe in some countries, defunct franchises can reform (Seattle, Detroit Falcons, Pittsburg Ironmen to name a few), the fact that some cities would have more than 1-2 teams would not be a problem and some teams from the other existing leagues could sign up for the 2nd and 3rd divisions.

There is something like 10 leagues operating in the USA right now, some are amateurish of course. There are also more than 500 American professional basketball players overseas at the moment and many would love to be back home.


But in order to do this, you have to kill the draft and sign players directly from college. And the college game should allow players to be 'loaned' from their NBA teams, assuming they receive no salary from them, so an 18 year old can be signed by the Bulls or the Lakers and still finish his degree and spend all 4 years in the college game, then the NBA team may use him instantly by offering him a contract, which the player may refuse and seek a contract elsewhere of course. You can't have promotion/relegation without a free market. Salary cap can still be in effect though, but that could also mean that big spenders like NY or LA based teams can keep a roster of 30 people and loan out half the squad to lower leagues, which will mean that the level of the 2nd and 3rd division may increase, without spending as much!

In the rest of the world, every freaking village has sports teams competing in professional leagues and some are in the top flight division. In the USA, you don't even have a team for each state. That's insane. There are cities such as Louisville, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Austin, Seattle, San Jose, Jacksonville, San Diego, Columbus, Nashville, Albuquerque, Raleigh, Pittsburg and so on that are screaming for such a development!

The only losers here are the teams that are tanking but keep the cash. The fans, the media, the guys who sell TV rights, the city councils and so on would be heavily pleased by such a development.

JLynn943
03-29-2016, 09:34 AM
In a league where success is so heavily tied to who has star players, I just don't see it working. It's rare to coach mediocre players into top-level players in basketball, and the top players make or break a team more in basketball than any other sport I can think of. The teams at the bottom of the league aren't not getting the star players because they want to tank - the star players just have no desire to go to them, so the teams have no choice but to build through the draft for the most part (or overpay mediocre players and subsequently get stuck in limbo). As a Kings fan, if the team ever got relegated it would make it even more difficult to attract free agents. The team would just get worse over time until the talent it has would transition to the bigger market, established talent teams. The player loaning system would be pretty much required to mitigate the financial hit the relegated teams would be taking, and I absolutely loathe that system. If any of this actually happened, I'd stop watching.

warfelg
03-29-2016, 10:13 AM
In a league where success is so heavily tied to who has star players, I just don't see it working. It's rare to coach mediocre players into top-level players in basketball, and the top players make or break a team more in basketball than any other sport I can think of. The teams at the bottom of the league aren't not getting the star players because they want to tank - the star players just have no desire to go to them, so the teams have no choice but to build through the draft for the most part (or overpay mediocre players and subsequently get stuck in limbo). As a Kings fan, if the team ever got relegated it would make it even more difficult to attract free agents. The team would just get worse over time until the talent it has would transition to the bigger market, established talent teams. The player loaning system would be pretty much required to mitigate the financial hit the relegated teams would be taking, and I absolutely loathe that system. If any of this actually happened, I'd stop watching.

Agreed. Relegation works in Euro Soccer because there's also a ton of talent, and there isn't in basketball.

I think relegation would only work in one of two ways:
The 4 worst teams still got the top 4 picks, but had to play in the NBDL for a year and the top 4 NBDL teams move up and don't get an NBA draft pick. The Draft becomes 4 rounds, first 2 rounds being NBA exclusive, 3rd and 4th rounds are NBDL exclusive.

Or, the top 4 NBDL teams coming up were given a higher cap to work with to sign players to give them staying power.

The part that most that come up with this are overlooking:
Lets say that relegation was the bottom 4 NBA, top 4 NBDL. Right now the NBA would lose (market wise) part of LA, part of NY, Philly and Phoenix. Thats all or part of 3 of the top 6ish markets in all of the USA. And they would gain the amazing markets of Sioux Falls, Canton, Maine, and Reno. There's less than a 0% chance the NBA would ever let that happen and lose the revenue sharing that would happen with that swap.

NYKalltheway
03-29-2016, 11:16 AM
You're measuring everything by market size, but ignore the fact that the market isn't really being utilized when success isn't there. If you had successful NY, LA and Phily teams, the NBA's revenues would be multiplied. And there chances are that in a relegation system, the NY, LA and Phily teams would be in a better situation and give their fans a better end product. Atm they don't care because there's no penalization. If you open the market and add a proper incentive, such as "YOU'LL LOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF YOU DON'T BUILD A GOOD ENOUGH TEAM", then the bigger teams will spend more. And the money spent will go to the smaller market teams. Imagine what kind of offers the Bucks could get for their youngsters from the larger market teams if the market was open and there weren't any significant transfer restrictions. That also means that some great players will leave the larger market teams on a discount, to a lesser marker team and so on.

And add to that, the incentive of currently non-existing teams in cities that would kill to have a professional basketball team, when they can set up a team to challenge for an NBA spot. The 2nd national division would still be able to pay millions and there could be a Cup tournament where they could all compete with each other, so an 2nd or 3rd division team could host a game vs the Warriors or the Lakers and manage to earn millions over night just because of ticket sales and TV rights.

Most people are missing what we're talking about and the potential positive effect it may have in US basketball as a whole because this is something alien to American sports. And please don't say basketball was invented in the US, because the NBA is not older than national leagues in countries (and former entities) like Greece, Uruguay, Argentina, Italy, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Puerto Rico, Hungary, France, Portugal and a few others... And the NBA didn't have a free agency till the mid 60s iirc. And I think the salary cap was introduced in the early 80s.

The first professional US league was formed in 1937, which still isn't the oldest in the world.

Scoots
03-29-2016, 01:25 PM
The system would have to change massively for relegation to be put in place. I think it would be interesting but it's never going to happen.

The best solution I've heard to stop tanking is to limit the owner to attending the number of games his team won the year before if they don't make the playoffs.

NYKalltheway
03-30-2016, 12:24 PM
You'll never know the effects of something until you try it. I think the USA has a historic change to enforce this with the MLS instead of limit it to the joke it currently is and give the chance to thousands of potential pro clubs appear in the hundreds of cities. Perhaps when the interest keeps up and world class players in soccer play in their primes for US teams with the global system of sports, the NBA will awake.

JWO35
03-30-2016, 01:32 PM
You're measuring everything by market size, but ignore the fact that the market isn't really being utilized when success isn't there. If you had successful NY, LA and Phily teams, the NBA's revenues would be multiplied. And there chances are that in a relegation system, the NY, LA and Phily teams would be in a better situation and give their fans a better end product. Atm they don't care because there's no penalization. If you open the market and add a proper incentive, such as "YOU'LL LOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF YOU DON'T BUILD A GOOD ENOUGH TEAM", then the bigger teams will spend more. And the money spent will go to the smaller market teams. Imagine what kind of offers the Bucks could get for their youngsters from the larger market teams if the market was open and there weren't any significant transfer restrictions. That also means that some great players will leave the larger market teams on a discount, to a lesser marker team and so on.

And add to that, the incentive of currently non-existing teams in cities that would kill to have a professional basketball team, when they can set up a team to challenge for an NBA spot. The 2nd national division would still be able to pay millions and there could be a Cup tournament where they could all compete with each other, so an 2nd or 3rd division team could host a game vs the Warriors or the Lakers and manage to earn millions over night just because of ticket sales and TV rights.

Most people are missing what we're talking about and the potential positive effect it may have in US basketball as a whole because this is something alien to American sports. And please don't say basketball was invented in the US, because the NBA is not older than national leagues in countries (and former entities) like Greece, Uruguay, Argentina, Italy, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Puerto Rico, Hungary, France, Portugal and a few others... And the NBA didn't have a free agency till the mid 60s iirc. And I think the salary cap was introduced in the early 80s.

The first professional US league was formed in 1937, which still isn't the oldest in the world.

Yeah this is something I think people forget...the only reason teams like NY & LA are sucking because they are only going to be rewarded(high draft pick) and not penalized for being one of the worse teams in the NBA. If they were facing relegation I'm sure the Lakers & Knicks would've made multiple moves/trades to prevent them from falling in the relegation zone, but because nothing happens if you are the worse team in the NBA why try to improve :shrug: