The 5-Year Lottery: A Way to Fix Tanking

[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 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 ty would stay ty 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 ty usually stay ty 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 (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 ty. If you give a company no incentive to improve because you reward their inep ude, 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 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 ty usually stay ty 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 (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 ty. If you give a company no incentive to improve because you reward their inep ude, 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 people and focus on trying to win vs just sitting around.

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]

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.

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 ty 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.

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 re ed 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 ty 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). 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 compe ive 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 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 ed 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 . 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 tier teams..it would help create more parity IMO..

[DPG21920]

So I have your vote HH?