The 5-Year Lottery: A Way to Fix Tanking

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39676/fix-tanking-the-five-year-lottery

Fix tanking: The five-year lottery
March, 29, 2012
10:25

By Henry Abbott
ESPN.com

It is universally acknowledged that there is something odd about teams being rewarded for playing badly, as discussed when HoopIdea first addressed tanking. But it's not a simple problem to solve. In that spirit, we present a number of different proposals.

TrueHoop reader David Lee (a corporate restructuring attorney who does not play power forward for the Warriors) says that he agrees with Jeff Van Gundy that a "flatter lottery" would be the way to go. His idea:

Instead of helping teams out who are really bad for a one-year period, the league should distribute lottery chances based on how many times a team has missed the playoffs, or failed to advance past the first round, during the last five years.

For example, lets give team two lottery balls for every year over the past five in which they failed to make the playoffs and one lottery ball for making the playoffs but failing to get past the first round.

This system will achieve a number of goals.

First, it arguably better helps the really needy teams: teams that are not just bad for the current year, sometimes due to injuries or intentional tank job (like when the Spurs lost David Robinson, got to draft Tim Duncan and have Robinson back the next year) but have been stuck outside of the playoff picture and contender status for a sustained period of time. To me, it seems like a team that flounders between, say, 25 and 40 wins for five years is more deserving of help than a team that suffered significant misfortune for one year.

Second, it removes the incentive to be really really terrible because barely missing the playoffs for a year is going to give team is the same increase in lotto odds as winning only 13 out of 82 games.

Third, it makes strategic tanking much harder to pull off, for a couple of reasons:

A team will have to sign up for more years of pain to maximize its chances for a particular super prospect.

It will be tough to anticipate which players will be good (and declare for the draft) several years in advance in order to time its tanking efforts correctly (i.e. to have lottery balls in the LeBron James draft rather than the Kenyon Martin or Kwame Brown draft).

The example I gave above (two balls for missing playoffs, one for a first-round out) would be "flatter" than the current odds, but the flatness or the lack thereof can be tweaked.

The idea is that it will address both the disadvantages of the status quo and the concern (by Joel Litvin and others) to give help to teams that truly need it.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I agree with just about all of this, except that it doesn't really serve justice to teams that lose their star player. For example, if they implemented this last year, the Cavs would have had a really low chance at getting the 1st pick to get Irving, even though they desperately needed him to replace Lebron as the star player.

[Giuseppe]

I'd rather they fix players like Stephen Jackson quitting and stabbing his coach in the back and then Pop running right over with a contract and acting like it's shaved pussy.

C'mon.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

I'd rather they fix players like Stephen Jackson quitting and stabbing his coach in the back and then Pop running right over with a contract and acting like it's shaved pussy.

C'mon.

I highly doubt Stephen Jackson will ever be near the top of the league's agenda.

[Giuseppe]

I highly doubt Stephen Jackson will ever be near the top of the league's agenda.

Of course not. Ipso facto, must be okay then.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Of course not. Ipso facto, must be okay then.

You'd rather the league focus on Stephen Jackson than try to fix tanking?

[Giuseppe]

You'd rather the league focus on Stephen Jackson than try to fix tanking?

They could always do both at the same time.

[ElNono]

'seppe has no room... Kobe quit and killed his coach

[m>s]

spurs just got luck to have the #1 pick in 97 the year tim duncan was in da pool, if they got it some other year (02' for example) they wouldn't get SHIT with it tbh

[Giuseppe]

'seppe has no room... Kobe quit and killed his coach

But, now I got company, ever more.

Let us proceed...

[Bill_Brasky]

I'd rather they fix players like Stephen Jackson quitting and stabbing his coach in the back and then Pop running right over with a contract and acting like it's shaved pussy.

C'mon.

So mad :lmao

[Giuseppe]

So mad :lmao

You GD rights.

[jag]

spurs just got luck to have the #1 pick in 97 the year tim duncan was in da pool, if they got it some other year (02' for example) they wouldn't get SHIT with it tbh

God loved David Robinson more than the entire Celtics organization. Tim Duncan was his way of showing that love.

[Giuseppe]

God loved David Robinson more than the entire Celtics organization. Tim Duncan was his way of showing that love.

Kobe: 5

the tired old shit bag Duncan: 4

(God forgot him). tee, hee.

[ElNono]

But, now I got company, ever more.

Let us proceed...

You're just scared... you know these rapists, coach killers are cold-blooded... and they scare you when they're in the competition.

[Giuseppe]

You're just scared... you know these rapists, coach killers are cold-blooded... and they scare you when they're in the competition.

This is true. And you got a rapist in Neal and a quitter and coach killer in Jackson & Diaw.

And the requisite consciousless enabler in Pop.

Let us proceed...

[silverblk mystix]

This is true. And you got a rapist in Neal and a quitter and coach killer in Jackson & Diaw.

And the requisite consciousless enabler in Pop.

Let us proceed...

Did you already forget about Magic killing his coach way back when....oh yeah that's right....you were riding a DIFFERENT bandwagon back then...

[Giuseppe]

Did you already forget about Magic killing his coach way back when....oh yeah that's right....you were riding a DIFFERENT bandwagon back then...

I never defend my fandom.

It's my religion.

[silverblk mystix]

I never defend my fandom.

It's my religion.

Bandwaggoners are not actually fans of a team...they are just fans of any team....that they are currently riding...

so there would be nothing to defend.

[Giuseppe]

Bandwaggoners are not actually fans of a team...they are just fans of any team....that they are currently riding...

so there would be nothing to defend.

I never defend my fandom.

Its my religion.

[Leetonidas]

Kobe: 5

the tired old shit bag Duncan: 4

(God forgot him). tee, hee.

Enjoy it while you can 'seppe

[baseline bum]

If they want to get rid of tanking, they should go back to having the lottery like it was in the 80s: having the order for non-playoff teams drawn uniformly random, so that everyone has the same shot at each pick.

[midnightpulp]

I never defend my fandom.

It's my religion.

Magic stuck Westhead in a shallow grave.

This is true.

[Giuseppe]

Magic stuck Westhead in a shallow grave.

This is true.

Absolutely. And now I got company. Jackson & Diaw quit, killed their coach and Pop signed 'em.

Congratulations.

[wanggi]

Absolutely. And now I got company. Jackson & Diaw quit, killed their coach and Pop signed 'em.

Congratulations.

Just wife beaters and child abuser love to claim I never defend my fandom..

[Giuseppe]

I never defend my fandom

I'm a trend setter.

I set trends.

[ambchang]

Never realized Jackson and Diaw has the same power to have their coaches fired like Magic did.

[stxspurs]

I'd rather they fix players like Stephen Jackson quitting and stabbing his coach in the back and then Pop running right over with a contract and acting like it's shaved pussy.

C'mon.

Eh...this is getting stale.

[wanggi]

I'm a trend setter.

I set bendover-mania trend.

[Giuseppe]

Never realized Jackson and Diaw has the same power to have their coaches fired like Magic did.

Quittin' is quittin'. Jackson & Diaw quit, stabbed their coach, then Pop came along tootsweet.

Stings, don't it, Amb?

[Giuseppe]

Eh...this is getting stale.

stale/schmale

Part & parcel to my NBA Forum rolling stock.

Get used to it, asshole.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Is this what every thread turns into nowadays? I don't lurk this side of ST much anymore.

[Giuseppe]

Is this what every thread turns into nowadays? I don't lurk this side of ST much anymore.

Yeah, but, it was okay when we had the entire shit sandwich to eat. Now that you must share the do-do, you take exception.

Shut up and get back upstair afore I whistle the loops on your ass.

[stxspurs]

stale/schmale

Part & parcel to my NBA Forum rolling stock.

Get used to it, asshole.



LOL rolling stock. Bitch pleazzze

[ambchang]

Did Silas and Skiles write a book detailing how difficult it is to coach Diaw and Jackson, respectively?

[Giuseppe]

LOL rolling stock. Bitch pleazzze

:lmao

[Giuseppe]

Pretty much. A good thread turns into shit when Giuseppe and midnightpulp go at it.

But, it was all right before Neal raped and was signed by Pop, and before Artest hit that 3 and Kobe went over 5-4, and before Jackson & Diaw quit.

See, you motherfuckers can dish it, but, when the tables get turned...(then) then you pussies want to play by the rules.

Ya weaks shits.

[Giuseppe]

not playing by the rules = rehashing a tired old shitbag schtick and beat it down all over again

You got no room. You played the rape card for years until Neal raped and got signed.

Chickens have come to roost.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i doubt stern gives a shit about lottery teams, his more focused on the bigger teams that bring in the money, as long those team continue to pile on talent legitimate or not, thats what matters to him....those lower teams could stack up all the talent they want, but they aint winning shit or turning the team into a contender, those sort of teams are more focus on putting out some kind of product that brings the viewers in....not every team can win a championship....

[DPG21920]

I agree with the premise, disagree with the solution. I proposed a year ago that in order to do away with tanking you reverse the lottery structure you have now. Instead of giving the worst team to miss the playoffs the best chance at the number 1 pick, you give the best team to miss the playoffs the best chance.

Not only does this take away incentive to tank (you'd be hurting your chances), it rewards teams that are on the cusp to help more teams take that next step or add that talented but cheap piece to provide more parity.

Through FA bigger markets will continue to do well, but for the teams that are good at scouting but struggle to lure FA's, they can continue to add good, cheap talent and it rewards them for trying to compete and build.

Some may argue that it will kill parity, but there isn't much parity now to be honest and rotten teams are usually rotten for multiple reason and stay that way unless really lucky. This system would create a more competitive league than there is now and accomplish the goal of fixing tanking. At least from the bottom half (you can see a scenario a team on the cusp of the playoffs tanks at the very end to have the best record and miss the playoffs although they would be losing out on some serious money by not making it).

[DMC]

I'd rather they fix players like Stephen Jackson quitting and stabbing his coach in the back and then Pop running right over with a contract and acting like it's shaved pussy.

C'mon.
You didn't give a flying limp dick fuck about Jackson prior to The Return.

[DMC]

I agree with the premise, disagree with the solution. I proposed a year ago that in order to do away with tanking you reverse the lottery structure you have now. Instead of giving the worst team to miss the playoffs the best chance at the number 1 pick, you give the best team to miss the playoffs the best chance.

Not only does this take away incentive to tank (you'd be hurting your chances), it rewards teams that are on the cusp to help more teams take that next step or add that talented but cheap piece to provide more parity.

Through FA bigger markets will continue to do well, but for the teams that are good at scouting but struggle to lure FA's, they can continue to add good, cheap talent and it rewards them for trying to compete and build.

Some may argue that it will kill parity, but there isn't much parity now to be honest and rotten teams are usually rotten for multiple reason and stay that way unless really lucky. This system would create a more competitive league than there is now and accomplish the goal of fixing tanking. At least from the bottom half (you can see a scenario a team on the cusp of the playoffs tanks at the very end to have the best record and miss the playoffs although they would be losing out on some serious money by not making it).
Either way it gives teams incentive to miss the playoffs. So they know they are a bubble team, they play just good enough to be the best of the non playoff teams. If winning your last game puts you in the playoffs, and losing it keeps you out, and there's a Duncan or Shaq in the lottery, a team is going to have a hard decision to make. You basically lose just by winning if you know you aren't good enough to make it out of the 1st round.

[Goran Dragic]

There's no way around tanking. The worst team should get the best pick, having a draft lottery of any sort is dumb.

[DPG21920]

Either way it gives teams incentive to miss the playoffs. So they know they are a bubble team, they play just good enough to be the best of the non playoff teams. If winning your last game puts you in the playoffs, and losing it keeps you out, and there's a Duncan or Shaq in the lottery, a team is going to have a hard decision to make. You basically lose just by winning if you know you aren't good enough to make it out of the 1st round.

While that may, and I say may be true once a decade (getting a Duncan/Shaq/Lebron sure thing), the penalty for missing the playoffs in your scenario is pretty steep naturally due to the large sums of money they are forgoing by not making it. Teams that make the playoffs receive a pretty nice financial lift so if you are going to tank, it's going to hurt you financially so I don't seeing it being an issue in my scenario.

Either way, you have them playing all the way up until the last 1 or 2 games basically which is still much better than the current tank job that takes place half a season and rewards it. At least in this scenario there is incentive to play better longer and if you want to tank there is a much bigger financial sting not to mention morale sting.

[DPG21920]

Also, you could keep the draft order the same for teams that make it where the best team gets the worst pick and the teams at the bottom of the playoff get the better picks.

[DPG21920]

There's no way around tanking. The worst team should get the best pick, having a draft lottery of any sort is dumb.

Disagree with this quite a bit. You shouldn't reward shit teams with good picks especially when history shows getting a top pick doesn't turn a shit franchise into a good one.

This isn't football. It works differently. In my scenario, you get teams that are good to possibly great vs giving shit teams the ability to maybe get to decent unless they get really lucky.

It's better for the league my way IMO.

[DMC]

While that may, and I say may be true once a decade (getting a Duncan/Shaq/Lebron sure thing), the penalty for missing the playoffs in your scenario is pretty steep naturally due to the large sums of money they are forgoing by not making it. Teams that make the playoffs receive a pretty nice financial lift so if you are going to tank, it's going to hurt you financially so I don't seeing it being an issue in my scenario.

Either way, you have them playing all the way up until the last 1 or 2 games basically which is still much better than the current tank job that takes place half a season and rewards it. At least in this scenario there is incentive to play better longer and if you want to tank there is a much bigger financial sting not to mention morale sting.

Though I like your system better than the one in the OP, free agency kills the entire "parity" aspect of the draft, since these guys can get their 4 years of training from some low level NBA team then join another 1st overall on their team.

Look at the past 1st overall picks. Which ones actually did anything to help the team they landed on? Then again, that might prove your point even more, that had they landed on teams on the cusp, they could push them over the top.

Then you would basically end up with 18 - 20 teams that competed every year, because those that dropped out would still probably play on the cusp unless we are talking about a Lebron/Cleveland situation where one team totally goes tits up after a free agent decides to leave.

[Goran Dragic]

I also think the amount of tanking that goes on in the NBA is really blown out of proportion. Maybe GMs and owners want the #1 pick, but the players and coaches ultimately control the tanking that goes on, and most players don't give a shit about tanking to get the team they're playing for a #1 pick especially when they know that odds are they're gonna be playing somewhere else 3-4 years later.

[DPG21920]

Though I like your system better than the one in the OP, free agency kills the entire "parity" aspect of the draft, since these guys can get their 4 years of training from some low level NBA team then join another 1st overall on their team.

Look at the past 1st overall picks. Which ones actually did anything to help the team they landed on? Then again, that might prove your point even more, that had they landed on teams on the cusp, they could push them over the top.

Then you would basically end up with 18 - 20 teams that competed every year, because those that dropped out would still probably play on the cusp unless we are talking about a Lebron/Cleveland situation where one team totally goes tits up after a free agent decides to leave.

That is exactly my point. Teams trying to win should be rewarded more and those players getting added to better teams would make the league better.

[Goran Dragic]

Disagree with this quite a bit. You shouldn't reward shit teams with good picks especially when history shows getting a top pick doesn't turn a shit franchise into a good one.

This isn't football. It works differently. In my scenario, you get teams that are good to possibly great vs giving shit teams the ability to maybe get to decent unless they get really lucky.

It's better for the league my way IMO.
The teams that are shitty would stay shitty forever. How is a bottom feeder supposed to ever become relevant again? There'd be no point in keeping a team around after it was bad for a certain period of time.

[DPG21920]

I also think the amount of tanking that goes on in the NBA is really blown out of proportion. Maybe GMs and owners want the #1 pick, but the players and coaches ultimately control the tanking that goes on, and most players don't give a shit about tanking to get the team they're playing for a #1 pick especially when they know that odds are they're gonna be playing somewhere else 3-4 years later.

IMO, I somewhat agree, but tanking isn't the only issue. It's just business and in business it makes no sense to give incentive or subsidize poorly run businesses. In my scenario, it rewards somewhat good small businesses and helps them to compete and if you want more good teams, my system is a much better way to even the playing field and makes better business sense from a product standpoint.

[DPG21920]

The teams that are shitty would stay shitty forever. How is a bottom feeder supposed to ever become relevant again? There'd be no point in keeping a team around after it was bad for a certain period of time.

Disagree again. Teams that are shitty usually stay shitty forever anyways (or at least a really long time) because they are poorly run and getting #1 picks doesn't change the fact they are shit (it might for a little while once every 10 years if you land a Lebron, but because in business good assets leave to better run companies, it doesn't last).

You don't keep that system when you can benefit the whole by doing it my way. The way they become relevant is by being forced to clean up their act or stay shitty. If you give a shit company no incentive to improve because you reward their ineptitude, they keep doing it. You implement a system that forces them to get better, you make them better. They hire smarter, draft smarter, fire the shit people and focus on trying to win vs just sitting around.

[Giuseppe]

tee, hee

I'm a trend setter.

I set trends.

[Goran Dragic]

Disagree again. Teams that are shitty usually stay shitty forever anyways (or at least a really long time) because they are poorly run and getting #1 picks doesn't change the fact they are shit (it might for a little while once every 10 years if you land a Lebron, but because in business good assets leave to better run companies, it doesn't last).

You don't keep that system when you can benefit the whole by doing it my way. The way they become relevant is by being forced to clean up their act or stay shitty. If you give a shit company no incentive to improve because you reward their ineptitude, they keep doing it. You implement a system that forces them to get better, you make them better. They hire smarter, draft smarter, fire the shit people and focus on trying to win vs just sitting around.
:lol being forced to clean up their act. Without using really vague and corny phrases like "You implement a system that forces them to get better, you make them better!" explain how a team like the Bobcats would get better without a top 5 pick (and before you say "well they aren't getting better with a top 5 pick!" that doesn't mean they'd get better with a top 5 pick)

Thinking that your system would be implementing a system that forces the Charlotte Bobcats to get better, which would lead to them drafting smarter is such backwards logic idk what to say. Pretty sure that if the Bobcats can't draft smart with a top 10 pick every year, they wouldn't draft smart with an 11-14 pick. I'm also curious what "Better personnel" would wanna go to the Bobcats knowing they won't even be getting a good draft pick. It's not like they deliberately hire inept people, they hire whoever is willing to go to the Bobcats, which isn't exactly the cream of the crop.

[Goran Dragic]

IMO, I somewhat agree, but tanking isn't the only issue. It's just business and in business it makes no sense to give incentive or subsidize poorly run businesses. In my scenario, it rewards somewhat good small businesses and helps them to compete and if you want more good teams, my system is a much better way to even the playing field and makes better business sense from a product standpoint.
The "It's just business" phrase is so blown out of proportion with the NBA it isn't even funny. If it was "Just Business" the NBA wouldn't pay 15 million bucks every year to subsidize the WNBA. If it was "Just Business" there wouldn't be any kind of a salary cap, and there especially wouldn't be a luxury tax that forces the big spenders who try to win to pay the cheap teams that don't. It's naive to think the NBA is run like a genuine business. Giving the worst team the best pick is one of many ways the NBA rewards complacent owners who don't care as much about winning as other owners.

[Giuseppe]

Tell us again how you didn't shout it from the mountaintops but then said you did

That's because I did.

[DPG21920]

:lol being forced to clean up their act. Without using really vague and corny phrases like "You implement a system that forces them to get better, you make them better!" explain how a team like the Bobcats would get better without a top 5 pick (and before you say "well they aren't getting better with a top 5 pick!" that doesn't mean they'd get better with a top 5 pick)

Call it corny, it's the truth and your system of rewarding the worst team with high picks I can prove doesn't make a difference. You can type as many exclamation points as you want it's a fact that high draft picks for bad teams doesn't really correlate with them getting better.

If you stop rewarding their bad management, they will be forced to do one of two things: Get better organizationally in order to get the assets you say will help them grow or sell to someone who can do a better job. Or, of course they could die off.


Thinking that your system would be implementing a system that forces the Charlotte Bobcats to get better, which would lead to them drafting smarter is such backwards logic idk what to say. Pretty sure that if the Bobcats can't draft smart with a top 10 pick every year, they wouldn't draft smart with an 11-14 pick. I'm also curious what "Better personnel" would wanna go to the Bobcats knowing they won't even be getting a good draft pick. It's not like they deliberately hire inept people, they hire whoever is willing to go to the Bobcats, which isn't exactly the cream of the crop.

You must not know a lot about business or what incentive's for inefficient companies do to a marketplace. What you fail to understand is that even if you don't agree with what it will force the Bobcat's of the world to do (which IMO you're wrong) it's even more about what it will do for the other teams that really aren't poorly run and can do so much more with a better draft pick than a team that is poorly run.

It's not backwards logic at all. If they didn't draft smart with a top 10 pick before and it's costing them chances to improve, management would be quicker to fire the dumbasses and bring in guys to do a better job.

:lol you questioning "who would want to go to the Bobcats! if they are teh suck!!!" is silly. It's a job the a million hungry and sharp people would line up out the damn door for if given the opportunity.

[DPG21920]

The "It's just business" phrase is so blown out of proportion with the NBA it isn't even funny. If it was "Just Business" the NBA wouldn't pay 15 million bucks every year to subsidize the WNBA. If it was "Just Business" there wouldn't be any kind of a salary cap, and there especially wouldn't be a luxury tax that forces the big spenders who try to win to pay the cheap teams that don't. It's naive to think the NBA is run like a genuine business. Giving the worst team the best pick is one of many ways the NBA rewards complacent owners who don't care as much about winning as other owners.

No offense, but you show a true lack of understanding of a market place. I'm not arguing that the current system doesn't create something beyond a normal market place; in fact that is my exact point so I'm not sure what you are arguing tbh...I'm arguing you should change that in a way and my proposal accomplishes that I think.

[Giuseppe]

But why did you say at first "just because I didn't shout it from the mountaintops....."?

ha, ha

I did say I shouted it from the mountaintops.

[Giuseppe]

I win

Let us proceed...

[Goran Dragic]

Call it corny, it's the truth and your system of rewarding the worst team with high picks I can prove doesn't make a difference. You can type as many exclamation points as you want it's a fact that high draft picks for bad teams doesn't really correlate with them getting better.
Do you really want me to list examples of bad teams getting saved by a top 5 pick?


If you stop rewarding their bad management, they will be forced to do one of two things: Get better organizationally in order to get the assets you say will help them grow or sell to someone who can do a better job. Or, of course they could die off.
I thought you just said having a top pick doesn't make a difference for them, which is it? Either the top 5 pick doesn't make a difference is it's rewarding them. If it's not making them better it isn't rewarding them.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the Bobcats "get the assets" in your scenario. Them dying off would be inevitable.




You must not know a lot about business or what incentive's for inefficient companies do to a marketplace. What you fail to understand is that even if you don't agree with what it will force the Bobcat's of the world to do (which IMO you're wrong) it's even more about what it will do for the other teams that really aren't poorly run and can do so much more with a better draft pick than a team that is poorly run.
More than half the teams in the NBA make the playoffs. If a team misses the playoffs, it's poorly run to a certain extent.

You also must not know about business if you think the NBA operates like a completely for profit business. The NBA does countless things other than give shitty teams good draft picks to reward them, things such as the luxury tax and salary cap.


It's not backwards logic at all. If they didn't draft smart with a top 10 pick before and it's costing them chances to improve, management would be quicker to fire the dumbasses and bring in guys to do a better job.
The bottom feeder teams usually have a revolving door at head coach and GM. It's not like there are teams out there that get complacent with being a top 5 bad team every year.


:lol you questioning "who would want to go to the Bobcats! if they are teh suck!!!" is silly. It's a job the a million hungry and sharp people would line up out the damn door for if given the opportunity.
None of these people would be capable of turning the Bobcats around.

Fortunately David Stern agrees with me that your idea is retarded and would never entertain it as a possibility.

[Goran Dragic]

No offense, but you show a true lack of understanding of a market place. I'm not arguing that the current system doesn't create something beyond a normal market place; in fact that is my exact point so I'm not sure what you are arguing tbh...I'm arguing you should change that in a way and my proposal accomplishes that I think.
By your logic the NBA should also get rid of the luxury tax so more teams have incentive to spend and less incentive to stay below the tax line. Agree?

[DPG21920]

Do you really want me to list examples of bad teams getting saved by a top 5 pick?

Sure, if you also list the teams that were not saved by getting a top 5 pick. At that point we can argue what you define as saved (I guess I would say they become a perennial playoff team) and see which list is longer.



I thought you just said having a top pick doesn't make a difference for them, which is it? Either the top 5 pick doesn't make a difference is it's rewarding them. If it's not making them better it isn't rewarding them.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the Bobcats "get the assets" in your scenario. Them dying off would be inevitable.

Draft picks (again, except in more rare cases with a Lebron/Duncan) don't do a ton to change the fortunes of truly poorly run teams/franchises. Of course a top 5 pick could help, but in the current system when you are giving incentive for being poorly run and tanking, it has little impact compared to having a system that forces you to do whatever you can to try and win. You can still get impactful players (see the Spurs) with late lottery picks. That's what you are failing to grasp - A terribly run franchise with a top 10 pick really doesn't solve the issue short term or long-term, but if you force teams to bring in better people and hold them accountable, they will do better with the assets they have (which are still lottery picks with plenty of opportunity to do well). That's how they get the assets. Not to mention better run franchises can lure better FA's as well.




More than half the teams in the NBA make the playoffs. If a team misses the playoffs, it's poorly run to a certain extent.

You also must not know about business if you think the NBA operates like a completely for profit business. The NBA does countless things other than give shitty teams good draft picks to reward them, things such as the luxury tax and salary cap.

That makes little sense and don't think it's true at all (the bold part). :lol Where did I say the NBA operates completely like a for profit business? You aren't paying attention at all and you sound like someone who's been in college, not taken many business classes and also has very little real world experience (is that true?)

Again, I said the issue is exactly what you wrote above; my idea is to change that. I also never said it solves every problem, just that of tanking and parity. You're argument is failing because the idea of giving the worst team the best pick we have tangible proof doesn't work. We know that. So why keep doing it when on all levels it makes no sense? My idea at least addresses some concerns even though it might not eliminate every single problem in the industry.



The bottom feeder teams usually have a revolving door at head coach and GM. It's not like there are teams out there that get complacent with being a top 5 bad team every year.


None of these people would be capable of turning the Bobcats around.

There are plenty of people that are capable of turning the Bobcats around if they were interested in doing so an the incentives in place and rewards in place made it the thing to strive for.

[DPG21920]

By your logic the NBA should also get rid of the luxury tax so more teams have incentive to spend and less incentive to stay below the tax line. Agree?

Somewhat. In a general sense, yes. I actually like a soft cap because not every element in this industry can operate like a free market. Again, I'm not saying the NBA is a normal industry, I'm simply saying the system in place to reward tanking and create parity does the opposite of what they intend to do (create parity and have more competitive teams since that is the OP topic).

I think the new restrictions on the luxury tax are stupid. It's too punitive.

[DPG21920]

By the way, I was joking about the college, work comment :lol Hope you got that.

[ElNono]

IMO, it's not that complicated. If you get back to back top 10 picks, you're not allowed to have a top 20 pick for the next 2 seasons, regardless of your record.

If your record would land you in the top 20, you'll get bumped down to the 21th pick.

You make it two seasons in the top 10 to avoid cases like Oden, where your top pick is fucked up. Then you do two seasons > 20th pick so teams have no perspective of landing a high pick, and thus have no incentive to tank.

[Spurtacus]

Is this what every thread turns into nowadays? I don't lurk this side of ST much anymore.

Sadly, yes. Its very rare to find an intelligent NBA discussion in this forum. Giuseppe is the main culprit with his trend setter shit. No one would miss him if he was banned.

[HarlemHeat37]

The most annoying NBA discussion is tanking IMO..

The current system is fine..the worst team isn't guaranteed to get the #1 pick..tanking is a risk that they're taking..if teams want to tank, losing games and potentially losing fans in the process, that's their prerogative..

Contraction is a more serious issue that would help solve the league's problems..

[Hoops Czar]

Contraction is a more serious issue that would help solve the league's problems..

How? By putting a whole bunch of people out of jobs.?

[DPG21920]

I don't think tanking is the real issue as I've said...

My system is more to get the cusp teams stronger

[HarlemHeat37]

It would benefit from removing pointless teams like the Bobcats, Hornets, etc..some of these teams have no fan support and terrible management, the league would benefit from spreading out the top players on the shittier teams..it would help create more parity IMO..

[DPG21920]

So I have your vote HH?