What's new
By:

The NBA and its stakeholders have started talks on finding new solutions to prevent tanking

NUMBERICA said:
Perfect! Teams that are bad will be bad forever!!! Great system. 10/10.
Click to expand...

Teams that are bad are either bad because they want to be bad or because they can't be helped.

In the old days, it was usually later. Hence the 90s Clippers or the original Grizzlies or the Kings for like a decade. These teams certainly didn't lack in draft picks, but when you keep picking Olowokandis and Mileses and Reeveses and the like, no amount of high picks will help you. That's just structural issues within the organization and the draft won't fix that.

Nowadays, most teams are bad because they made a conscious decision to be bad. Surely, I don't need to tell you that the standings would not look the same right now if all teams had made positive, winning-only moves the last 5 years. Our very own Jazz aren't bad because of bad luck or crappy circumstances.

We had the #1 record in the league and we had two All-NBA players and we chose to trade them.
We chose to trade both of those for picks instead of good players, and even the good player we got in return were just luck. Our FO was certainly not hoping to find the likes of Markannen, Kessler, or to a lesser extent Sexton.
We had acquired some net-positive veterans a few years back and chose to trade them all away. Again, it was for pick and not anything to help us win now.
We have been sitting some of the gems we've unearthed in order to lose games and signing and playing players we know will lose us games.

I mean, if you're trying to fix the system and you're not trying to disincentivize all these, what are you doing? We need a system where teams aren't encourage to trade away everything of value for middling picks and then lose games hoping to get a good pick or two.
 
Let's see what they come up with. These should be the most brilliant minds in pro sports
But it seems like every new idea they come up with seems to make NBA ball worse.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I think the tear down looking less immediate will prevent some teams from tanking (which could be good or bad) but that's kind of what they want... right?

I think allowing teams to opt out of eligibility for a certain pick, say its a 1 or 2 player draft, is fine. I also think almost no one would opt out. Also, fine with saying tough ****.

The draft is basically NBA socialism. If its going to be socialist it should consider other factors than just a 6 month period. If you got big benefits before (San Antonio) or won 50 games last year (indiana and LA) then maybe your "net worth" prevents you from getting benefits.
Click to expand...

I don’t see why tear down has to be a thing. That’s not something I think is important to protect. Idk if this opinion is shared, but the dilemma of trading a player like Lauri for the purpose of bottoming out is not a good thing.

I feel like multi year really does a better job of capturing the teams “that need it” even if it’s not as immediate. I think it would de-emphasize trades for the purpose of being bad.
 
The most simple way to stop tanking is player bonus. If you play 70+ games you get a bonus. Call it 10% of your contract.
That would also get rid of a bunch of infected hair follicle injuries that take out players for weeks.
As far as the lottery you make all teams who missed the playoffs equal odds to get any pick. The playoff teams would get picks based on records.
 
I also think it should be impossible to be outside of the bottom 10 or 12 teams and win the lottery. If you are a middle of the pack team like the Mavericks you shouldn't even have the opportunity to draft someone like Cooper Flagg.
 
nateboz said:
The most simple way to stop tanking is player bonus. If you play 70+ games you get a bonus. Call it 10% of your contract.
That would also get rid of a bunch of infected hair follicle injuries that take out players for weeks.
As far as the lottery you make all teams who missed the playoffs equal odds to get any pick. The playoff teams would get picks based on records.
Click to expand...
Players, don't tank. Organizations do. Tying tanking to player incentive is pointless.

Want to deincentivize organizational tanking, go after their cash flow. 35 years ago, revenue was in ticket sales, so high attendance was key to profit. Everything now is shared through national broadcasting deals and supplemented by local broadcasting right distributed through revenue sharing. Attendance doesn't matter, thus quality of local product doesn't matter for profitability. Want to limit the golden goose? Limit only teams that make the playoffs or the play to be eligible for revenue sharing.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Players, don't tank. Organizations do. Tying tanking to player incentive is pointless.

Want to deincentivize organizational tanking, go after their cash flow. 35 years ago, revenue was in ticket sales, so high attendance was key to profit. Everything now is shared through national broadcasting deals and supplemented by local broadcasting right distributed through revenue sharing. Attendance doesn't matter, thus quality of local product doesn't matter for profitability. Want to limit the golden goose? Limit only teams that make the playoffs or the play to be eligible for revenue sharing.
Click to expand...
If a player is going to lose out on millions of he doesn't play 70 games. He will not sit out. Coaches may not play them as many minutes but they wouldn't fake hurt anymore.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
I guess that is a good point. March/April should be basketball's time to shine since Football is over and MLB doesnt start til late March, but it is the worst basketball of the season.

But like what if a team has the 10th seed for draft position when March starts, then they make the playoffs? I guess whoever got bounced out of the playoffs would just move into the draft and everyone above that team would get bumped up a slot? So you would still have teams tank to not make the playoffs in the scenario they have a lottery protected pick (which would be solved by removing all pick protections).
Click to expand...
Yeah this whole lottery protection stuff should be gone. It does prevent stupid GMs like Dumars/Billy King from handing them out like candies. But most GMs should've learnt these lessons and be more cautious about trading draft picks. Removing pick protections also helps solve tanking because teams would have no reason to tank if they don't own their draft pick. We wouldn't be talking about tanking this year at all if that top 8 protection was never a thing.

Pick protection exists solely to allow teams to continue tanking even after they already traded their pick.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
You think it's the player's decision to dnp-rest a player or list him as out for a minor injury when the team's trying to tank?
Click to expand...

You don't think Lauri, as a veteran max player, could refuse to sit with a fake injury? Damn right he could.

He's just choosing not to. I don't think he likes tanking, but he likes being Employee of the Month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top