I want the Jazz to lose.

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

I agree tanking is terrible for his career. But he chose to sign that contract. He chose to prevent a trade this season.

Lauri knew the Jazz were going for a full-on tank this year. He could have pushed for a trade at any point when his value was sky high.

You're right, of course. If I were to offer him an out, it would be that the amount of money offered is akin to a golden handcuff. He'll be disgruntled in his golden retraints, I guess. Anyone who criticizes him for taking that kind of money despite knowing the state of things has never been offered that kind of money

Still, I imagine that he didn't bargain for endless tanking or endless sucking. At some point, he's going to want to play meaningful basketball. When that happens, I hope he ups his game. He's been kind of a disappointment this year.

 

[LogGrad98]

How did the Spurs get Wemby?

Exactly.

No pain, no gain.

Nope, it is the NBA conspiracy, and I am fully invested. The NBA wants the storied franchises to have the best players, so the Spurs get the best and only generational prospect in a draft YET AGAIN. Third time in their history. Yep. That's what up.

 

[fishonjazz]

You must not watch games and just look at stats

It's rare that stats and what you see on court don't line up. And when that rare instance happens it's usually with a player like Rudy Gobert where they do the little things that don't show up in the stats (screen assists, deterring dudes from shooting in the paint, tipping out rebounds to teammates etc)

 

[fishonjazz]

You're right, of course. If I were to offer him an out, it would be that the amount of money offered is akin to a golden handcuff. He'll be disgruntled in his golden retraints, I guess. Anyone who criticizes him for taking that kind of money despite knowing the state of things has never been offered that kind of money

Still, I imagine that he didn't bargain for endless tanking or endless sucking. At some point, he's going to want to play meaningful basketball. When that happens, I hope he ups his game. He's been kind of a disappointment this year.

Lauri could have taken the same money and made himself available to be traded. He chose the route where he can't be traded so either he was down to tank or he is an idiot.

 

[underdog]

I'm reasonably confident that the NBA suits are highly concerned about tanking. As the above also notes, and which to this point has been underdiscussed, it's also detrimental to the careers of the many players who are collateral damage to the tank, e.g., Lauri. I don't think anyone would blame him if the tanking drags on he came out and said something like, "Play me or trade me" or "Play to win or trade me." Careers all have a time stamp on them, and spending up to one-quarter of your career on teams trying to lose and being held out of games for the purpose has got to be frustrating.

Not only does it threaten the integrity of the game, but it's optics are horrible, and it figures prominently in NBA discourse, such as articles, blogs, podcasts, etc. While I understand the strategic thinking behind it, my view is that the league needs to find ways to disincentivize this strategy.

Decoupling draft position from record seems one of the more obvious ways. The wheel is one approach. Giving any team only X number of years in the lottery before they cycle out, automatically rotating teams to the back of the lottery if they remain there past a certain point, or something else. I don't have the solution, and each will have second-hand casualties. But, while tanking may be a viable strategy for teams (for which I have some doubts), it's neither a viable nor sustainable strategy for the league as a whole.

Yeah, it’s a problem. But criticizing the league for it is just talk unless you’ve got a solution that’s better than what’s already in place. The issue is complex. And we’d be wrong to think the league hasn’t tried hard to solve it or that they won’t have other cracks at it.

 

[underdog]

You're right, of course. If I were to offer him an out, it would be that the amount of money offered is akin to a golden handcuff. He'll be disgruntled in his golden retraints, I guess. Anyone who criticizes him for taking that kind of money despite knowing the state of things has never been offered that kind of money

Still, I imagine that he didn't bargain for endless tanking or endless sucking. At some point, he's going to want to play meaningful basketball. When that happens, I hope he ups his game. He's been kind of a disappointment this year.

Lauri hasn’t changed. Just look at how our guards (except Collier) play, and you can see why Lauri’s FG attempts are down. Put Lauri on a team that moves the ball, and he'll shine as before.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Lauri could have taken the same money and made himself available to be traded. He chose the route where he can't be traded so either he was down to tank or he is an idiot.

That's a lot of assumptions about Lauri's state of mind, what was told him during negotiations, and what other factors contributed to his decision. Life rarely presents such clear binary explanations.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Yeah, it’s a problem. But criticizing the league for it is just talk unless you’ve got a solution that’s better than what’s already in place. The issue is complex. And we’d be wrong to think the league hasn’t tried hard to solve it or that they won’t have other cracks at it.

The argument that "one can't offer criticism unless one can also offer solutions" is silly. It's a common rhetorical device used by people to deflect criticism, shut down opposition, and spare them the bother of crafting a counterargument. People can be reasonably astute at identifying that a problem exists but simultaneously lack the information or hubris to pretend to have the answer. (Mostly when they DO think they have the answer, it is uninformed hubris.) For example, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that homelessness is a problem; however, this line of reasoning would preclude anyone from stating this unless they had a solution for it. Good luck with that.

But you're right. The situation is complex. I don't have an answer. I have some ideas, but I haven't studied it or thought about it enough to pretend I know the answer. But I do believe a problem exists. I recognize fully that the current system incentivizes it, and I don't blame teams for doing it. However, I dislike it intensely. I think it hurts the credibility of the league, produces an unentertaining product, is a disservice to fans, and yields questionable efficacy (depending on what its objectives are).

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Lauri hasn’t changed. Just look at how our guards (except Collier) play, and you can see why Lauri’s FG attempts are down. Put Lauri on a team that moves the ball, and he'll shine as before.

That may be. I hope so.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's a lot of assumptions about Lauri's state of mind, what was told him during negotiations, and what other factors contributed to his decision. Life rarely presents such clear binary explanations.

Quick question, do you think he thought the jazz were shooting for the playoffs this season? Lolololololololmao

If he did then we have to circle back to the chance that he night be an idiot.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Quick question, do you think he thought the jazz were shooting for the playoffs this season? Lolololololololmao

If he did then we have to circle back to the chance that he night be an idiot.

Quick answer: no. Lolololololomao.

You have no inside info about the details of the negotiations, including what promises, assurances, conditions, etc. were discussed and how they and other factors influenced Lauri's decision to sign. Don't pretend you do. You've no reason to be so confident that it yields itself to your simplistic binary explanation.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

How did the Spurs get Wemby?

Exactly.

No pain, no gain.

Here's the Spurs' record over the last five years: 23-24: 22-60; 22-23: 22-60; 21-22: 34-48; 20-21: 33-39; 19-20: 32-39.

That's a hell of a lot of pain. The Spurs got Wemby out of sheer dumb luck, not because of some galaxy-brain strategy. All the other teams in the lottery didn't get him. What gain did they get for their pain?

Five years is a pretty freak'n long time for a fan base to suffer like that. What is the minimum payoff you'd expect to make it worthwhile?

This post illustrates the classic reasoning fallacy of focusing on the hits while ignoring the misses, which are often a large multiple of the hits. Another common reasoning fallacy on display here is focusing on the odds of winning while minimizing the much greater odds of losing (i.e., let's endure years of suffering for a 14% chance, at best, of striking gold and ignore the 86% chance we don't strike gold). The odds are actually much lower than 14% given that a Wemby-calibre player comes around only very sparingly.

I'm curious whether other situations exist where collective brain trust is so praised for making low-odds, risky bets and trashing their product in the process based on little more than a hope and prayer that they beat the odds and, literally, win the lottery.