Philosophically speaking -- is tanking good for the NBA?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Just the idea that we have to put up with a season of absolute dog **** for a relatively small % chance at top talent is really annoying.

Wouldn't the odds of Utah getting a top talent be better if we just had the ability to sign them? Is there not a chance Victor and his agent would have wanted to sign with a Donovan/Rudy team? Would Jabari Parker/Jimmer/Dame wanted to sign with Utah? (And yes I know Jimmer/Jabari turned out to be ***, but they were seen as top talents and Utah would have had a good shot to sign them, point being top talents do emerge that theoretically could value being in Utah and that could happen without having to be ******).

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

They do it in college because being around talent makes you look better (generally) which will get you picked higher in the draft (so more money). There's also the whole thing of them knowing it's only going to be for a single year.

I would not do it as an auction. My idea is to do it as rookies having their entire own salary cap separate from non rookie players. Minimum rookies wouldn't count against that cap. Each team has the same set amount of money they can spend on rookies. So if you blow your entire rookie cap on Victor on a 4 year contract (the max contract would be the max cap), you are going to be relegated to only having the minimum amount to spend on rookies for the next 4 years. That's roughly my idea, there would probably be more to it, but basically a hard cap for rookies.

I think that would obviously get rid of tanking but I think it would favor the better FA markets and they already have such a big competitive advantage that I'd hate it.

Nothing extreme will ever happen though... it will always be tweaks to the existing draft system as tanking is not as big of an issue as it seems.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

All the players are already overpaid. Thought that was the idea. You are being paid very generously to live and play some where
you may not prefer. When you retire after a very short career you can take your giant bank account and go live wherever on the planet
you want for the rest of your life. But that does not even appeal to some players.

This going to be wild to hear, but players are people with their own desires and they don't have to placate you. If you had the power to get paid and have your choice of location to live, you'd probably do it.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Flat odds for the entire lottery? Then you just going to have teams tanking out of the 7th/8th seeds.

And only one player has actually left Utah in all these years.

If you moved to a ten team lotto and there was a $25M+ incentive for teams to at least make the play in then teams won't tank out of the playoffs.

You could flatten out the lotto odds on those 10 teams and make every pick one that subject to the percentages. If you drafted top 3 last year your odds decrease by 50%.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think that would obviously get rid of tanking but I think it would favor the better FA markets and they already have such a big competitive advantage that I'd hate it.

Nothing extreme will ever happen though... it will always be tweaks to the existing draft system as tanking is not as big of an issue as it seems.

Yeah, nothing going to change, you prob right.

But I think the fear of it making the league imbalanced isnt as bad as most think. I think I would create more balance tbh.

Also it would really separate teams who get lucky in the draft vs people who can actually evaluate talent/fit.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

If you moved to a ten team lotto and there was a $25M+ incentive for teams to at least make the play in then teams won't tank out of the playoffs.

You could flatten out the lotto odds on those 10 teams and make every pick one that subject to the percentages. If you drafted top 3 last year your odds decrease by 50%.

What happens when the Clippers are the 8th seed with Kawhi and PG sitting due to injury and decide to tank out the playoffs and get the 1st pick?

 

[slc]

This going to be wild to hear, but players are people with their own desires and they don't have to placate you. If you had the power to get paid and have your choice of location to live, you'd probably do it.

Don't think players care what I think. Just an opinion.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, nothing going to change, you prob right.

But I think the fear of it making the league imbalanced isnt as bad as most think. I think I would create more balance tbh.

Also it would really separate teams who get lucky in the draft vs people who can actually evaluate talent/fit.

Yeah I have no idea... I think it would fix some issues and would create others that might be worse than tanking. I would reward good management and scouting in some instances. There are things I like about the idea for sure.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

What happens when the Clippers are the 8th seed with Kawhi and PG sitting due to injury and decide to tank out the playoffs and get the 1st pick?

Then they lose a bunch of games at the end of a year and a more healthy team makes the playoffs. It would be almost impossible for them to lose enough the fall all the way below the play in... and if they land like 8% odds of #1 as the reward and thought it was good then okay I guess.

Is that worse than 5-6 teams really watching how much they win for 82 games and not signing good players or offloading good players at a big discount because they don't want to be too good? Building losing habits/culture if they do that for 3-4 years in a row?

 

[Jazzmix]

All the players are already overpaid. Thought that was the idea. You are being paid very generously to live and play some where
you may not prefer. When you retire after a very short career you can take your giant bank account and go live wherever on the planet
you want for the rest of your life. But that does not even appeal to some players.

That's a valid point but for a completely different discussion.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That's a valid point but for a completely different discussion.

It's not really a valid point at all.

 

[The Jazz Wonderbra]

Did any of you guys recall that they adjusted the lottery odds just a few years ago? That has lead to more 5 - 12 teams getting top picks than ever before. The point was to remove the incentive to tank.

I think that only improves the value of unprotected picks because the odds that they end up top 3 just went up meaningfully. Hence Ainge's latest tankathon strategy is better than before. If minny or cavs once get an injury and just miss the playoffs, it could end up a top 3 pick. That's nuts.

It also creates a reasonable argument to not be the worst of the worst. However, I don't think the incentive was good enough. Tanking is still alive and well. If the league waits 2 more years and then changes the odds it just makes Ainge's moves that much better (other than getting even richer on Bogie).