How The NBA Can Limit Tanking

This idea, actually seems pretty logical and easy to do.

The Idea-Shorten the Lottery from 14 teams to 8 teams

For example..
Lottery Picks
1. Washington
2. New Orleans
3. Cleveland
4. Charlotte
5. Detroit
6. Sacramento
7. Toronto
8. Phoenix

No Picks
9. Dallas
10. Orlando
11. Philadelphia
11. Lakers
12. Boston
13.Utah
14. Minnesota

The 8 teams in the new lottery would be put into a drawing (like the current system) with the worst team having the best chance of getting the #1

1. 27 %
2. 20%
3. 14%
4. 11%
5. 10%
6. 7%
7. 6%
8. 5%

So Washington would have a 1/4 chance of landing the top pick.

The other 6 picks could be distributed in several ways

Option A

The same eight teams would be placed in another lottery, this time in reverse order. for example Washington would have 5% chance of nabbing a pick in the 9-14 range while Phoenix would have a 27% chance of getting Pick 9-14. The six teams that are drawn first get them, while the other 2 teams would be out of luck.

Pro's- The bad teams have an opportunity to nab premium talent , Helping the bad teams help turn around their fortune with the possibility of taking 2 of the top 14 available young players in world. Teams also could be free to package one of their two picks along with current roster players to improve their roster for the following season.

Example the Nets had the 6th pick last season, they traded it for Gerald Wallace prior to actually receiving it. It this system had been in place they may have had two lottery picks and could have packed them in a several team trade for Dwight Howard.

Cons-The other 6 teams that would have originally been in the lottery, would be out of a top 14 pick. While most of these player, are much less likely to turn out to be all stars, they could at the very least turn into starting caliber players.

Example
1996
-Kobe Bryant- 13th Pick-Charlotte Hornets
-Peja Stojakovic-14th Pick-Sacramento Kings

1997
-Tracy Mcgrady-9th Pick-Toronto Raptors

2004
Luol Deng-7th Pick-Phoenix Suns
Andre Iguodala-9th Pick- Philadelphia 76ers

Option 2

Allow the other 22 teams a chance to grab these 6 picks. For example the conference ,who wins the All star game, could be rewarded with the rights to the 9th-14 picks.

Example-The West wins the All star game and the remaining teams, that are not currently in the bottom 8, are placed in a lottery. 12 teams would be in the mix if this was the system this season. The top seed in the west could be guaranteed the 14th pick, and the 5-8 seeds take a pick. The last remaining pick would be drawn for.

Example
8th seed-9th Pick
7th seed-10th Pick
6th seed-11th Pick
5th seed-12th Pick
Remaining team-13th Pick
1st seed-14th Pick

Pros-This would add another element to the All star game, which is usually pretty competitive, especially in the 4th quarter for an exhibition game. The best team would be rewarded with another pick in the top half of the draft the bottom half of the playoff bracket would be rewarded for making the postseason.

Cons-The middle of the road teams Utah, Minnesota, & the Lakers:p: would have have a tough time improving their roster without a top half pick.


Why it Could Work-the teams on the outside of the playoffs (like the suns last season) would be encouraged to be active in trying to acquire pieces to improve their roster in hopes of an playoff push. If they fail to make the playoffs, they aren't given a consolation prize of the lottery.

The really bad teams, who unintentionally tank, would get immediate help with up to 2 prospects.

Tanking late in the season to improve their odds in the lottery would be minimized because of the loss of 6 lottery slots. The teams that were battling for a playoffs that fall out of playoff contention late, can't just play rookies, and hope to jump a few spots in the back half of the lottery.

They shouldn't give the worst record team much better probability to land top picks.

I think the simplest and most effective manner to fix the lottery would be to dilute the advantage of having a bad record. Rather the ranging the lottery likelihood from 25% (worst record) to 0.7% (14th worst), instead range it from 13% to 4%. The bad teams will still generally get top picks most often, but it will be too risky to intentionally suck.

This pretty much does the opposite. If you don't get a pick unless you are in the bottom, you have incentive to tank...

To me, the better solution entirely is entirely reverse the logic where the teams that have the best records that didn't make the playoffs get the odds in their favor.

1) It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives a tangible reason not to tank (there is no incentive since winning gets you the better odds).

2) As we have seen, if you really want to increase parity, you have to have more good teams. Unless it is a true franchise player (Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Nash, Pau Gasol - which is rare), really bad teams like the Bobcats don't become competitive since it's a gamble and they are usually bad for a reason that goes beyond just talent. However, teams on the cusp of a playoff (like a Golden State, Houston, Dallas, Minny) could really benefit from landing an Anthony Davis type player.

That would help ensure that more teams on the cusp have a legit shot at getting cheap talent enough to make that next level jump and compete for the playoffs.

That's my idea.

What's your problem with tanking in the first place?

Demote the last team to the D-League & promote the D-League winner.
Or just suppress the draft.
Ok... I don't think the NBA is ready for that.

But the whole concept of rewarding failure with the #1 pick is strange.

So maybe flat odds would be the best solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

This pretty much does the opposite. If you don't get a pick unless you are in the bottom, you have incentive to tank...

To me, the better solution entirely is entirely reverse the logic where the teams that have the best records that didn't make the playoffs get the odds in their favor.

1) It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives a tangible reason not to tank (there is no incentive since winning gets you the better odds).

2) As we have seen, if you really want to increase parity, you have to have more good teams. Unless it is a true franchise player (Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Nash, Pau Gasol - which is rare), really bad teams like the Bobcats don't become competitive since it's a gamble and they are usually bad for a reason that goes beyond just talent. However, teams on the cusp of a playoff (like a Golden State, Houston, Dallas, Minny) could really benefit from landing an Anthony Davis type player.

That would help ensure that more teams on the cusp have a legit shot at getting cheap talent enough to make that next level jump and compete for the playoffs.

That's my idea.

---

That's a pretty good idea, you would reward those teams that actually tried to make the playoffs but were unable to, so with the top pick they could turn from average to elite team in just 1 season, making the league more competitive

DPG has the best answer. It requires the team to play hard all season. It would amplify those teams who are forever shitty teams. It might even lead to league contraction. It won't happen under Stern, but it might happen. Even then though, there should not be a great difference in odds, but just enough to make a team want to be in that position.

That and fewer games would ratchet up the interest in the regular season.

Not only that, but any new rule or system, besides accomplishing what you want it to should be simple to implement. This requires very little work to "flip the switch" so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunodf

That's a pretty good idea, you would reward those teams that actually tried to make the playoffs but were unable to, so with the top pick they could turn from average to elite team in just 1 season, making the league more competitive

---

It's not even about that tbh. It's about keeping competition levels high, keeping games watchable, making end of season games worth something. It doesn't really matter who gets the pick, as long as everyone feels they have to fight for it.

I know this will not change (at least not in a close future) but as I said, I don't like the draft system.

Somehow, it is just a legacy of the NCAA. But now, with people coming from all over the world, turning pro at 16yo... it sounds a little bit anachronistic.

Here in Europe, people sign whoever they want to a contract. Teams always have something to fight for (title, playoffs, demotion...).
The main issue is that most time powerhouses win. But this is just like in the NBA, sometime a small team will make it for having built the correct chemistry, for finding the next superstar...

Out of curiosity, why all of you sound so attached to the draft system?

I like the idea in premise DPG21920 but I think you'd have a lot of middle seeds fighting to stay out of the playoffs. Regardless of what's happened recently with Memphis and Philly, 8-seeds have almost no chance of doing anything in the playoffs. So why would a team choose that over getting a lottery pick? Right now, the lottery works so that there isn't much difference between bubble-in and bubble-out teams. They'll get picks 13-17 or something in that area. So there's little incentive to miss the playoffs on purpose now. That all changes if a win is the difference between having a 1-in-4 shot of getting Anthony Davis and having the privilege of getting destroyed by the 1-seed in the first round.

Chinook - There is already a pretty large financial incentive to make the playoffs. The difference in making the playoffs and not can mean a lot of revenue lost. I would imagine (that unless there is a can't miss prospect which is rare) that owners would not be too happy if a team tanked to miss the playoffs and cost them the money that goes along with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Chinook - There is already a pretty large financial incentive to make the playoffs. The difference in making the playoffs and not can mean a lot of revenue lost. I would imagine (that unless there is a can't miss prospect which is rare) that owners would not be too happy if a team tanked to miss the playoffs and cost them the money that goes along with it.

---

Well when it comes down to it, only one or two of the teams from each conference would succeed in just missing the playoffs each year. Rather than shooting the worst possible record, like with modern tanking, they'd have to tank very strategically (like Memphis did two years ago). I could see it being a win-win for teams: Succeed in tanking and accelerate growth by getting a really good player; or fail at tanking and get playoff revenue. There are teams that choose to tank instead of making the playoffs right now. Look at what Jordan did with the Bobcats. He had a playoff team and traded away all the key players to save money and tank. If immediate financial gain were all that mattered, teams would never tear down and rebuild. You system makes that easier, because teams wouldn't have to get all the way bad; they'd just have to get bad enough to grab the 9-seed.

Is that a bad thing? Not really. That would be great for a team like San Antonio, who look like it could be a lower-seed playoff team after the Big Three are gone. You'd see quick turnarounds for smart franchises. Also, it would add intrigue to the last few days of the season, since seeding may not be decided for a while with teams jockeying for 9th place. My biggest issue is that you'd have bad teams that would have an even harder time getting better.

I'd propose this alternative: The two 9-seeds get the top two picks (coin flip in all cases regardless of record or head-to-head), while the rest of the lottery teams are put in a system like the one we have now. You can tweak things like if the 10-seeds get high picks, too, or if the 9-seeds should get the second- and third-overall picks while leaving the first to the lottery winner, but you get the picture. I think that would allow for better competition in the middle while still giving bad teams a chance to recover.

Damn some of you are so determined so change the draft that you'd think San Antonio got fucked over by the current system.

fck tankin and ur lottery

every team should have equal chance of gettin a lottery pick...just put all teams and random draw

I believe all non-playoff teams should have an equal chance to win the lottery. Just put them all in one hat and take a pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

Option 2

Allow the other 22 teams a chance to grab these 6 picks. For example the conference ,who wins the All star game, could be rewarded with the rights to the 9th-14 picks.

Example-The West wins the All star game and the remaining teams, that are not currently in the bottom 8, are placed in a lottery. 12 teams would be in the mix if this was the system this season. The top seed in the west could be guaranteed the 14th pick, and the 5-8 seeds take a pick. The last remaining pick would be drawn for.

Example
8th seed-9th Pick
7th seed-10th Pick
6th seed-11th Pick
5th seed-12th Pick
Remaining team-13th Pick
1st seed-14th Pick

Pros-This would add another element to the All star game, which is usually pretty competitive, especially in the 4th quarter for an exhibition game. The best team would be rewarded with another pick in the top half of the draft the bottom half of the playoff bracket would be rewarded for making the postseason.

Cons-The middle of the road teams Utah, Minnesota, & the Lakers:p: would have have a tough time improving their roster without a top half pick.

---

:vomit:

the fuck was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paranoid Pop

What's your problem with tanking in the first place?

---

nothing really, its just that when it hits April every columnist starts putting teams on blast for doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I'd propose this alternative: The two 9-seeds get the top two picks (coin flip in all cases regardless of record or head-to-head), while the rest of the lottery teams are put in a system like the one we have now. You can tweak things like if the 10-seeds get high picks, too, or if the 9-seeds should get the second- and third-overall picks while leaving the first to the lottery winner, but you get the picture. I think that would allow for better competition in the middle while still giving bad teams a chance to recover.

---

In theory that makes sense but your leaving the Washington's of the world completely on without a paddle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

This pretty much does the opposite. If you don't get a pick unless you are in the bottom, you have incentive to tank...

To me, the better solution entirely is entirely reverse the logic where the teams that have the best records that didn't make the playoffs get the odds in their favor.

1) It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives a tangible reason not to tank (there is no incentive since winning gets you the better odds).

2) As we have seen, if you really want to increase parity, you have to have more good teams. Unless it is a true franchise player (Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Nash, Pau Gasol - which is rare), really bad teams like the Bobcats don't become competitive since it's a gamble and they are usually bad for a reason that goes beyond just talent. However, teams on the cusp of a playoff (like a Golden State, Houston, Dallas, Minny) could really benefit from landing an Anthony Davis type player.

That would help ensure that more teams on the cusp have a legit shot at getting cheap talent enough to make that next level jump and compete for the playoffs.

That's my idea.

---

I didn't claim that it was going to stop tanking, but just cut down on the teams who actually do it. By taking away 6 slots the mediocre teams would have more incentive to make the post season and get a 9-14 range pick. That really seems like it would be the most logical ,to me at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

In theory that makes sense but your leaving the Washington's of the world completely on without a paddle

---

No, I'm not. The alternative I'm proposing to DPG21920's plan specifically addresses that. Washington would get a top-five pick every year if they remained the worst team. And it's highly unlikely that there'd be perennial 9-seeds in this scenario, which would allow for good movement.

Maybe if they can make a small tournament at the end of the season (during playoffs) in which the worst teams (8?) play against each other in order to win the first pick, 2nd, 3rd....
That way teams that dont classify to the PO still have something to do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG_Spurs_Fan

I believe all non-playoff teams should have an equal chance to win the lottery. Just put them all in one hat and take a pick.

---

Only if you remember to freeze the Knicks' envelope first.

Involve the 20 worst teams in the lottery. 20 Balls for the worst team, 19 for the second worst, and so on. Also, don't just have a drawing for the top 3, have a drawing for each of the top 20 picks. That way, the teams at the bottom still have the "best" chance, but the difference is so small that tanking isn't worth the risk. This also means that the teams who barely made the playoffs have a shot at getting better and challenging the actual contenders the next season.

You want to stop tanking? Set the draft up where EVERYONE has a shot at the #1 pick. Put a ball in for each loss a team has. ie 2012 Spurs and Bulls get 16 balls each, while Charlotte gets 59 and Wash 46 NOLA and Cleveland 45. Then draw for the #1 pick. If it is SA or Chi so be it. Percentage of winning the #1 pick become a lot smaller than under the present system. Also, teams like SA and Chi are not penalized for winning. They can draw in the to "lottery" area just like everyone else. The incentive to tank becomes far less attractive. Washington would have a 4.65% chance to win the #1 pick while SA and Chi would have a 1.62%. This would place winning as more important than tanking.

Of course, paranoid pop will not like. Why? He didn't think of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

My biggest issue is that you'd have bad teams that would have an even harder time getting better.

---

This is the most common/biggest argument I get when I discuss my idea. While logical and intuitive, I just don't agree. When you look at the system today, the vast majority of NBA titles over the years have been won by the same teams:

Staring in 1984 the list of franchises that have won a NBA Title:

Boston, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat & Mavs. That is 8 out of 30 teams in the past 29 years with a title, with the majority going to Boston, LA, CHI & SA (21 out of 29 titles).

Not only that, but unless there is a transcendent talent (which is very rare), there is almost no correlation with getting lottery picks and truly competing for playoff runs/titles when you are a really bad team. The same franchises appear to be in the lottery over and over and it's because you can't teach them to fish. They are given fish, so they eat for a day, but they still starve over the long haul because of a multitude of other factors (namely terrible management). In this system, while in theory it would make it harder for the bad teams to get better, it really doesn't change a whole lot from the reality of what happens today (except in those rare Lebron to CLE moments). In this new system, I think it's a lot more likely that the well managed teams that are right there on the cusp of making the playoffs, have enough of a shot to take the next jump while remaining finanically responsible. So without changing the reality of the lower level teams much except in rare cases, you provide a system that not only discourages tanking in most situations, but it accomplishes a better chance at parity in the league.

And DMC is correct in pointing out that this would likely lead to some much needed contraction anyways.

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

This pretty much does the opposite. If you don't get a pick unless you are in the bottom, you have incentive to tank...

To me, the better solution entirely is entirely reverse the logic where the teams that have the best records that didn't make the playoffs get the odds in their favor.

1) It doesn't guarantee anything, but gives a tangible reason not to tank (there is no incentive since winning gets you the better odds).

2) As we have seen, if you really want to increase parity, you have to have more good teams. Unless it is a true franchise player (Duncan, Lebron, Shaq, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Nash, Pau Gasol - which is rare), really bad teams like the Bobcats don't become competitive since it's a gamble and they are usually bad for a reason that goes beyond just talent. However, teams on the cusp of a playoff (like a Golden State, Houston, Dallas, Minny) could really benefit from landing an Anthony Davis type player.

That would help ensure that more teams on the cusp have a legit shot at getting cheap talent enough to make that next level jump and compete for the playoffs.

That's my idea.

---

I disagree with the first part about the highest winning non playoff teams getting a high lottery pick.

Worst 8 teams should have the opportunity to improve their fortune by possibly obtaining 2 of the top 14 picks. Washington could acquire say the #1 and the # 13 pick. If the draft well thats a possible super star and legit starter for the next decade +. Having teams like Dallas & Minnesota be rewarded by beating out the other bubble teams for the final 4 playoff seeds with picks 9-12.

Washington and Toronto would be hurting with only a late lottery pick, they'd continue to be terrible unless they find a gem like the ones I gave as an example.


The best team in the conference that wins the All star game would recieve a 14th pick along with their 29th or 30th pick. That way the they also have quality young talent and can remain a contending team after their core ages.

Any team could use Anthony Davis really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

---

I agree for the most part.

-With a hard cap, you'd really be at the mercy of several factors in retaining a title contending team for example

If the cap was set at 70million

The hornets (soon to be the Pelicans) were in the finals with a core 3 of Davis, Rivers & Gordon

In the off season N.O had 56 million committed to 13 players (solid book keeping, thats 4.3 million per player, the average is over 5 million)

But the only player not under contract happened to be Austin Rivers who was coming off a strong season (I.e 18.5ppg, 4 rpg, 4.2 ast) and the Pelicans offered

the remaining cap space to him (14 million a season 7.5% raises over 5 years)

The Kings, for example, had only 48 million in salary and offer in 18 million (over 4 seasons, while paying him more than the Pelicans offered him over 5) by eliminating the bird rights you'd be almost guaranteeing him walking and a contending team taking a hit in the talent department.

Washington and Toronto have had continued lottery picks and are still terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

fck tankin and ur lottery

every team should have equal chance of gettin a lottery pick...just put all teams and random draw

---

The Lakers and Knicks would take turns getting the #1 pick each year in that system, let's be real now :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I've always thought that the idea of contraction is ludicrous. There are too many great players from around the world to say that the United States can't support 30 teams. There are a lot of reasons why the talent gap is so huge between haves and have nots, and some of it has a lot to do with the lack of a hard cap and very limited restrictions of player movement. More than that, the system is catered so that teams with top-five players to get a disproportionate amount of favor, both in marketing and in game situations. This completely subverts the idea of building a good team without bending over backward to get a superstar.

One player shouldn't be that important. Contrary to what people think, there's no reason why a solid team with great coaching (Memphis, but with great coaching) can't beat a team like Miami in a seven-game series. I don't care how good a player is, a good system combined with fairer defensive rules can go a long way toward restoring parity. That would in turn make winning the lottery less important for small-market teams to do in order to build a contender.

---

Contraction isn't happening, too much money too be had, and the leagues image would take a serious hit, if it it shut down a team, Like a company shutting down 8 stores. There are too many, I'll give you that.

People love watching teams score, it really true across the board, the NFL has changed rules to encourage offense and make playing great defense harder. MLB lowered the mount several times to stop pitchers from dominating the game and giving the hitter a better chance of getting on base or hitting a home-run. The NBA added hand checking to stop defenders from hacking at the ball, which cut down on turnovers and lead to more points being scored, ironically scoring in the NBA is down when compared to the 80's, Like the NCAA basketball has a 35 second shot clock but ranked teams are scoring 12-15 points less than in the early 90's with a 45 second shot clock.

Memphis one of those rare teams that play fantastic defense and score at a great clip. The would be favored against Miami, even without a superstar.

I understand the point about the game being too superstar centric but in a game where only 12 players can play a night and only 5 players on the court a one time for a team its much easier for 1 player to dominate than say baseball or football. Duncan and Robinson both dominated if you draft a elite player you get a leg up.

The 2004 Pistons are really the only team that didn't have a super star but that is clearly the exception to the rule.

Denver is struggling, in part because they don't have a top 25 player or (a top 5 position player) who can take over a game.

Atlanta on the other hand has Horford & Smith who (both are PF's) are in the top 12 forwards in the league.

Utah has Jefferson who is a top 10 PF and Milsap who is top 15 PFs

Great coaching helps degate the talent on an opposing team, (Spurs B Team @ Miami)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

The Lakers and Knicks would take turns getting the #1 pick each year in that system, let's be real now :lol

---

Yeah, Fuck that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Washington and Toronto have had continued lottery picks and are still terrible.

---

Kerr said that another GM had told him, "If you get half of the pick right, you're doing a great job"

Wall has been inconsistent and injury prone, but he also hasn't been surrounded with talent.

Beal has played fairly well, being asked to play PG on a 3-19 team.

Vesseley is a work in progress but is pretty going to be pretty good.

Remember the T-Wolves

had 5 top 6 picks since Garnett got traded

Johnny Flynn
Ricky Rubio
Kevin Love
Wesley Johnson
Derrick Williams

2 of them are studs 2 dubds and 1 (Williams) who is TBD


Toronto I can't defend... they suck ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick1948

You want to stop tanking? Set the draft up where EVERYONE has a shot at the #1 pick. Put a ball in for each loss a team has. ie 2012 Spurs and Bulls get 16 balls each, while Charlotte gets 59 and Wash 46 NOLA and Cleveland 45. Then draw for the #1 pick. If it is SA or Chi so be it. Percentage of winning the #1 pick become a lot smaller than under the present system. Also, teams like SA and Chi are not penalized for winning. They can draw in the to "lottery" area just like everyone else. The incentive to tank becomes far less attractive. Washington would have a 4.65% chance to win the #1 pick while SA and Chi would have a 1.62%. This would place winning as more important than tanking.

Of course, paranoid pop will not like. Why? He didn't think of it.

---

That idea just isn't realistic or even practical, Washington would be shit outta luck. My idea gave the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick that gives them 2 picks in the 1st round, thats a lot better than this idea. Toronto isn't intentionally tanking the legitimately suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy Watson

Instead of tanking, the NBA should limit the GMs' bad choices when selecting players

---

Stern would do something like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

In theory that makes sense but your leaving the Washington's of the world completely on without a paddle

---

The Washingtons have gotten 1st overall picks and haven't done shit with them. These types of teams are just place holders for the stars until they become free agents. The league would be better served for highly touted prospects to get face time after the draft instead of being stowed away on shitty teams for 4 years. A 1st overall pick should change a team's fortunes. Most of the time it doesn't do anything. The fact that a team needs a couple of these just to compete is a testament to the fact that the league has too much dead weight. Some franchises will never be competitive.

just have the top 4 teams in each conference play an 8 team playoffs for top pick, it has the added bonus of extra kind-of-playoff-but-not-really games, which would bring more money to those teams...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

The Washingtons have gotten 1st overall picks and haven't done shit with them. These types of teams are just place holders for the stars until they become free agents. The league would be better served for highly touted prospects to get face time after the draft instead of being stowed away on shitty teams for 4 years. A 1st overall pick should change a team's fortunes. Most of the time it doesn't do anything. The fact that a team needs a couple of these just to compete is a testament to the fact that the league has too much dead weight. Some franchises will never be competitive.

---

I disagree most of the #1 picks stay with their team until they are traded. Franchises can be competitive it takes luck, competent ownership and management. San Antonio, Dallas, & Houston have won 7 Championships in the last 17 seasons they are are considered to be small markets (despite Houston being like 8th in terms of largest city)

I can't deny that their are some dead weight and they should trim the fat but thats not going to happen

Minnesota
New Orleans
Golden State
Houston
Cleveland

all have drafted well or have stock piled assets to attract or trade for talent

95-Kevin Garnett- Played 13 seasons with the Minnesota Timberwolves before a 8 player trade sent him to the Celtics

96-Allen Iverson-played 12 seasons with Philadelphia before being traded to the Denver Nuggets

97-Tim Duncan (he obviously stayed 16 seasons and counting)

99-Elton Brand-played two seasons and was traded on draft night for Tyson Chandler

2000-Kwame Brown-played four seasons and was traded for Caron Buttler

2001-Kenyon Martin played 4 seasons then signed and traded with the Nuggets (he was the only one to leave after 4 seasons)

2002-Yao Ming- Played entire career with Rockets before retiring

2003-Lebron James played seven seasons and took his team to the playoffs 5 times before being traded to the Heat (Sign N' Trade)

2004-Dwight Howard-played 8 seasons with the Magic leading them to the post season 5 times.

2005-Andrew Bogut-Played 6 seasons before being traded to Golden State

2006-Andrea Bargnani 5th season with the Raptors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velik_m

just have the top 4 teams in each conference play an 8 team playoffs for top pick, it has the added bonus of extra kind-of-playoff-but-not-really games, which would bring more money to those teams...

---

That seems a unnecessary just reward the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick with out adding 7 games to a cramped calender, in your proposal would it take place before or after the playoffs the players would also ask for a piece of that money given that they have to play extra games and it appearing on national TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

That seems a unnecessary just reward the top seed on the all star winning conference the 14th pick with out adding 7 games to a cramped calender, in your proposal would it take place before or after the playoffs the players would also ask for a piece of that money given that they have to play extra games and it appearing on national TV.

---

I meant top 4 (9th-12th in conference) that don't make the playoffs, they could play during the later stages of playoffs, 5 or 3 game series. You have to include more teams, to motivate the weak teams, reaching plaoffs is impossible for washington, but reaching 12th place in conference not so much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by velik_m

I meant top 4 (9th-12th in conference) that don't make the playoffs, they could play during the later stages of playoffs, 5 or 3 game series. You have to include more teams, to motivate the weak teams, reaching plaoffs is impossible for washington, but reaching 12th place in conference not so much...

---

Its just not practical, after bad teams end the season players aren't just going to stick around for three weeks and then play in a losers bracket instead of going on vacation.